“The news reached that Jerusalem was handed over to the Franks, so the resurrection took place in the countries of Islam, and the greatness intensified, so that funerals were held…; [Q] O shame of Muslim kings!!

This is another scene from our history..not from the site of victories, nor crowned with honor and heroism. Rather, it is another dark side that the imam historian Ibn Sibt al-Jawzi (d. 654 AH / 1256 AD) mourned with those words, when he spoke about the moment of handing over Jerusalem hand in hand to the Crusader occupiers, via " A suspicious deal made with them by a Muslim sultan in dark scenes, but it exudes a lot like its counterparts that share with it one obsession with each 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 ideal. Rather, we need to slow down the pace of studying the history of glories and victories in favor of reviewing the history of defeats and betrayals, for moments of collapse may be more revealing than the moment of ascent.

This article is an attempt to extrapolate some of the homeland sales deals in our history;

To tell how the occupier penetrated?

Did he enter through the border only or also through the internal pockets?

By presenting details that narrate 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 the whim of an authority and issues that were sold in “centuries deals”!!

Down with the crusaders

The Islamic East was not a forerunner 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 of foreign invasion;

The Levant and Egypt witnessed during the era of the Crusades - which lasted between 490-690 AH / 1097-1291 AD - several betrayals 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 / 1118 AD) - who was able to occupy the city of Edessa (= 'Urfa' in Turkey today) and establish the first Crusader emirate there in 491 AH/1098 AD - headed towards the city of Sumaysat (its location today in southern Turkey) and occupied it.

In this regard, Ibn Abi al-Dam al-Hamawi (d. 642 AH / 1244 AD) says in his book 'Al-Mukhtasar fi Tarikh al-Islam': "And the year four hundred and ninety entered: ... during which the Franks conquered Antioch and Sumaysat."

But Baldwin - before he embarked on the siege of Sumaisat - sent him the ruler of the Seljuk city - who is called "Bouldaq" according to Ghaleb al-Dulaimi in his book 'The Position of the Armenians in the Crusades' - offering to hand over Sumaisat for ten thousand golden dinars (which is about 1.7 million US dollars now). ), which Baldwin accepted and saw as an opportunity.

Thus, Sumaisat fell due to the betrayal of that prince, who sold it at a cheap price;

According to a narration reported by the contemporary historian of the Crusades, William Al-Suri (d. 582 AH / 1186 AD) in his book 'The History of the Crusades';

And transferred from him Ghaleb al-Dulaimi in his book mentioned.

In the same year;

Antioch, the major coastal city of Syria 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 the year 479 AH / 1086 AD - by the Seljuk Prince Yaghi Syan (d. 491 AH / 1098 AD) in the name of the Seljuk Sultan Malikshah (d. 485 AH / 1092 AD).

A fatal betrayal and


to restrict Antioch, the Crusaders established a fortress near it on a nearby hill to tighten the siege that lasted nine months. Yaghi Sian had entrusted an Armenian leader who had finally embraced Islam to protect the city’s towers, but this Armenian betrayed the Muslims and handed it over to the enemies in exchange for a bribe!

In this regard, the historian Izz al-Din ibn al-Atheer (d. 630 AH / 1233 AD) says in 'Al-Kamil': "When the Franks remained in Antioch for a long time, they sent one of the conservators of the towers, a zarard (= armor maker) known as 'Ruzbah', and they gave him money and a fiefdom, and he was He is responsible for keeping a tower that follows the valley, and it is built on nets in the valley. When the matter was decided between them and this cursed zebra, they came to the window, opened it, and entered through it.”

And the city fell because of this betrayal, to ratify the saying that “castles and fortresses do not fall except from within”!

Egypt almost fell into the hands of the Crusaders because of the greed and betrayal of its rulers;

After the death of the Fatimid Caliph Al-Mustansir Billah (d. 487 AH/1094AD) - Egypt 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 weak Fatimid caliphs.

The most famous of these conflicts was what took place - in Ramadan in the year 558 AH / 1163 AD - between the military commander Durgham bin Amer al-Lakhmi (d. 559 AH / 1164 AD) and Minister Shawar bin Mujir al-Saadi (d. 564 AH / 1169 AD);

Dargham was able to grab the position of the Fatimid Ministry.

It was only from Shawar that he set out towards Damascus to seek help and relief from the Zanki Sultan Nur al-Din Mahmoud (d. 569 AH / 1173 AD), who honored him and resolved to help him in return for “returning to his position, and Nur al-Din will have a third of the country’s income after the soldiers’ fiefs, and he will have with him from The princes of the Levant are those who reside with him in Egypt, and he acts on the orders of Nur al-Din and his choice.”

As Al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH / 1441 AD) says in 'The Hanafis' Teachings about the News of the Fatimid Imams Al-Khalafa'.

However, Shawar turned against that agreement with Nur al-Din, and further betrayed when he allied himself with the Crusaders, and they coveted to seize Egypt.

According to al-Maqrizi;

It did not come in the year 564 AH / 1169 AD but that “the Franks gained control of the land of Egypt and ruled in it unjustly, and they caused great harm to the Muslims, and they were certain that there was no protector for the country, and the weakness of the state became apparent to them, and the faults of the people were exposed to them.”

Were it not for the fact that Sultan Nur al-Din sent - again and quickly - the two leaders Asad al-Din Shirkuh (d. 564 AH / 1169 AD) and Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (d. 589 AH / 1193 AD) to crush this alliance and eliminate Shawar and the Crusader presence;

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

A stab at the ancestors


. However, what is surprising and surprising in the incidents of betrayal of the rulers on that date is that they came from the sons after the honorable inheritance of the ancestors 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 will be the handing over of a holy city the size of Jerusalem, which was the first Muslims’ qiblah.

After Sultan Salah al-Din recovered it in 583 AH / 1187 AD, with long preparation and great jihad;

Some of his relatives returned and handed it over again to the crusader occupiers, so that their act would be a "mark of shame in the life of kings";

As one of the poets rightly said.

The betrayal of Jerusalem was repeated twice;

The first of them was in the year 626 AH / 1229 AD, in what was known as the Sixth Crusade, when the complete Ayyubid Sultan of Egypt Muhammad ibn al-Adil (d. 635 AH / 1237 AD) handed it over to the German Emperor Frederick II (d. 648 AH / 1250 AD), without sacrificing a single drop of blood in order to protect it!

This would leave Frederic control over cities such as Nablus and Hebron.

The historian Ibn al-Atheer spoke about the impact of that “deal” on the hearts of Muslims at the time, and said: “The Franks received the Holy House, and the Muslims glorified that and made it great, and they found weakness and pain that cannot be described. God pleased to open it and return it to Muslims.”

He was followed by the preacher historian Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi in 'Mirrat al-Zaman';

He said: "The news reached the handing over of Jerusalem to the Franks, so the resurrection took place in the countries of Islam, and the greatness intensified, so that funerals were held...; [Q] O shame of Muslim kings!!"

It is strange that Sultan al-Kamil, a short time before his agreement with Frederick, contacted his brother, the King of the island, Al-Ashraf Musa (d. 635 AH / 1237 AD);

He said, according to what Ibn al-Atheer narrated from him: “I did not come to this country (= Syria) except because of the Franks. The hurricane and the passage of days pass, so if the Franks took it, we had bad remembrance and ugliness in modernity, which contradicts that beautiful remembrance that our uncle saved, and what face remains for us with people and with God Almighty?!!

The historian Ibn Wasil al-Hamawi (d. 697 AH / 1298 AD) - in 'Mafraj al-Kurub in the News of Bani Ayyub', quoting his father, who was in Jerusalem witnessing that betrayal - says that "when the armistice occurred, the Sultan sent those who called in Jerusalem for the Muslims to leave and hand him over to the Franks...; He said: When Jerusalem was called for the Muslims to leave and Jerusalem to be handed over to the Franks, the people of Jerusalem made noise and crying, and that was great for the Muslims, and they were saddened by the exit of Jerusalem from their hands, and they denied and rebuked the perfect king for this act, as the conquest of this honorable country and its rescue from the infidels was one of his uncle’s greatest exploits. King Al-Nasir Saladin!!

Jerusalem remained in the hands of the Crusaders for more than ten years until it was recovered from them in the year 637 AH / 1239 AD, Sultan Al-Nasir Daoud Ibn Al-Moazham (d. 656 AH / 1258 AD), but - to vex his cousin, the good Sultan of Egypt Ayoub (d. 647 AH / 1249 AD) - he handed it over to the Crusaders again In the same year, the historian Ibn Aybak al-Dawadari (d. after 736 AH / 1335 AD) says in 'Kinz al-Durar and the Mosque of Gharar': "And in it (= year 637 AH / 1239 AD) Al-Nasir Dawood, the owner of Karak, handed over Jerusalem to the Franks."

Al-Nasir Dawud did that as a betrayal and in pursuit of his personal interest so that the Crusaders would remain in alliance with him against Al-Salih Ayoub;

Forgetting that he had commissioned the grandson of Ibn al-Jawzi, the preacher, to deliver a powerful sermon at the Umayyad Mosque, denouncing what his uncle al-Kamil had done of surrendering to Jerusalem!

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

As the good Sultan Ayoub was able to crush the Crusaders and the Levantine Ayyubids allied with them in the 'Battle of Gaza', where they marched "under the flags of the Franks and on their heads crosses"!!

According to the description of the tribe of Ibn al-Jawzi.


Dependency of the Tatars


The Abbasid state was subjected to a long series of betrayals throughout its history that spanned more than five centuries, but the most famous of those who caused its elimination and erasure of its traces was the Minister Muayyad al-Din bin al-Alqami (d. 656 AH / 1258 AD), who worked - diligently and on several axes - To overthrow the Abbasids and erase their landmarks, even in cooperation with the Tatar occupiers.

Ibn al-Sa’i (d. 674 AH / 1275 AD) - a contemporary Baghdadi chronicler of the events of the fall of his city - details some aspects of Ibn al-Alqami’s betrayal by saying in “Mukhtasar News of the Caliphs”: Hulagu (d. 663 AH / 1265 AD) when the minister's correspondence reached him, he disguised himself and entered Baghdad in the clothes of a merchant and met with the minister and the state's dignitaries and decided the rules with them. Six hundred fifty-six (656 AH / 1258 AD), and the minister went out to them, so he trusted them with his family and himself, and he said [to the deceased Caliph al-Musta'sim 656 AH / 1258 AD]: This has come to marry his daughter to your son. The greatest of Baghdad sect after sect until they were completed by the Tatars, so they put the sword in them and killed the caliph.”

Ibn Al-Alqami thought that he would enjoy his betrayal and rise above the necks 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 of the unworthy Tatar entered riding his horse, and he drove until he stood with his horse on the minister’s rug and addressed him as he wanted. ";

According to the narration of Ibn Aibak al-Safadi (d. 764 AH / 1363 AD) in 'Al-Wafi with Deaths'.

Although Baghdad fell through treachery and deception in the year 656 AH / 1258 AD;

Damascus also fell the following year by the same means, and the ruler of Damascus at the time was the Ayyubid king, Nasir II Yusuf (d. 659 AH / 1261 AD), the grandson of the first Nasser, Salah al-Din, but this grandson was not like his grandfather, as Ibn Abi Usayba (d. 668 AH / 1269 AD) describes him - in his book 'Uyoun al-Anba' - that he was a "coward who stopped the war".

And when he came to Hulagu’s letter, in which he says, according to the narration of Ibn al-Abri (d. 685 AH / 1286 AD) in “The History of Mukhtasar al-Dawla”: “King al-Nasir knows that we landed in Baghdad in the year six hundred and fifty-six (656 AH / 1258 AD), and we opened it with the sword of God Almighty, and we brought its owner. .; so let it be considered for you in the past, and what we have mentioned and said is rejected.

and with the cheese of King al-Nasir;

His minister, the doctor Zain al-Din al-Hafidhi (d. 662 AH / 1264 AD) and his eyebrows, Prince Najm al-Din, were among the weak and cowardly men who were closer to treachery than to confrontation and steadfastness in order to protect the homelands, and they incited King Al-Nasir to surrender.

In depicting the motives for that position, Ibn Abi Usabah says: “Tatar messengers came from the east to King Al-Nasir, seeking the country and stipulating conditions for him with what he brings to them of money and other things. Until he became on their side and mixed them, and he hesitated in correspondence several times [between them and al-Nasir], and the Tatars coveted in the country, and he began to exaggerate their affairs against the Victorious King, glorify their stature and glorify their kingdom, describe the large number of their soldiers and belittle the stature of the Victorious King and his soldiers.”

Disappointment and intimidation.


The historian Girgis bin al-Ameed (d. 672 AH / 1273 AD) - in his history 'Ayyubid News' - tells us this betrayal that took place - before the Mongols entered the Levant - on the lips of Najm al-Din al-Hajeb, who seemed to oppose Baibars (d. 676 AH / 1277 AD) and the leaders of Mamluks in favor of a military confrontation with the Mongols;

He addressed the attendees, saying: "Everyone who says that he receives Halawun (= Hulaku) speaks and does not know what he is saying, and who is the one who meets Halawun with two hundred thousand knights?"

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 supporters betrayed him, and one of them indicated Hulagu to his place.

Qutb al-Din al-Yunini (d. 726 AH / 1326 AD) - in his history 'The Tail of the Mirror of Time' - says about the fate of the second Nasser after his betrayal of his nation: He was with them in humiliation and humiliation.” Then they took him with them - after their defeat in Ain Jalut in the year 658 AH / 1260 AD - to the city of Tabriz (which is located today in northwestern Iran);

He remained with them until Hulagu killed him in 659 AH / 1261 AD!

As for Minister Zain al-Din al-Hafizi - with a history full of betrayal and treachery - Ibn Abi explained to us the price he received from the Tatars, and what became of him in the hearts of Muslims as a result of that act.

Ibn Abi Asba’a says: “The Tatars (= Tatars) owned Damascus in safety and they made a representative in it on their side, and Zain al-Din also became in it and ordered him and a group of soldiers remained with him until they called him ‘Al-Malik Zain al-Din’. The owner of Egypt and with him the soldiers of Islam, and the Tatars were broken in the valley of Canaan, the great and famous kasra (= the battle of Ain Jalut), and the countless great creation of the Tatars were killed; the deputy of the Tatars and those with him were defeated from Damascus, and Zain al-Din al-Hafizi went with them, fearing for himself from the Muslims! !

But this treacherous minister later met the fate of King Al-Nasir when Hulagu accused him of writing to the Mamluks in Egypt.

The historian Ibn Al-Dawadari reports this dialogue, which summarizes some of the ends of traitors in Islamic history.

He says:

Halawan (= Hulagu) said to him - when he wanted to kill him - that he said to him: Your instinct and your manipulation of countries has proven to me, for you served the owner of Baalbek as a doctor and you betrayed him, and you agreed with his boys to kill him until he was killed; then you moved to the service of King Al-Hafiz (= Sahib) Ja'bar Castle Nur al-Din Arslan Shah bin al-Adil (died 639 AH / 1241 AD) who was known by him, so you went to him, King Al-Nasir [the second], the owner of the Levant until you took him out of the castle of Ja'bar, then you came to the service of King Al-Nasir, and he did with you what you did not name him of all good, so you betrayed him with me... Then he ordered him to be killed and all his family!"

Al-Safadi - in "Al-Wafi with Deaths" - provides details of Al-Hafizi's fate and background;

He says: "He killed him and his children and relatives, who were about fifty, and among the reasons for that were books he sent to Al-Zahir [Baybars] and that was in the year sixty-two."

Betrayals of Andalusia


We have previously seen some scenes of rulers betraying the trust in the countries of the Islamic East, but chronologically, the Islamic West may have been earlier than it to 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 distance of their times.

The lands of Islam in Andalusia were subjected to a series of betrayals, even as if its history was an uninterrupted torrent. The palaces of government witnessed a group of leaders and princes who were of a high degree of dishonesty, and resentment to the point of cooperating with the enemy against each other for the sake of short-term personal ambitions, which were It punished the state of Islam and its civilization in those places.

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

His uncles Suleiman (d. 184 AH / 800 AD) and Abdullah (d. 208 AH / 823 AD) 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 / 788 AD) to take power after him.

Therefore, they decided the practical betrayal in alliance with the revolutionaries in the state of Al-Thaghr Al-Ala (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).

And the historian Muhammad Abdullah Annan (d. 1407 AH / 1986 AD) speaks - in his book 'State of Islam in Andalusia' quoting from Latin sources and an unverified manuscript of the book 'Al-Muqtab' by Ibn Hayyan al-Qurtubi (d. 469 AH / 1176 AD) dating to years before 233 AH/848AD - About this betrayal and alliance with the enemies, to the extent that those who committed it took the trouble to travel from Cordoba to Germany and between the two cities, a distance of 2,100 km!!

Annan says: "Abdullah [Ben Abd al-Rahman al-Dakhil] marched to the upper border instigating the country and mobilizing the supporters to fight the government, then crossed the Bernese Mountains to the country of the Franks (= France), and sought to meet Charlemagne (Carl the Great) in the city of Ixla Chapelle (= Axe). La Chapelle, which is currently the German city of Aachen), where he was holding his court at that time, and asked him for help and support. And he seized the city of Girona (Giranda), and then penetrated into the state of Al-Thaghr Al-Ala with the acquiescence of some Khariji leaders" from the revolutionaries of those areas.

Despite the failure of the revolutions and the alliance of the traitorous brothers Suleiman and Abdullah with the Frankish King Charlemagne, the first was killed by the soldiers of the Umayyad regime in 182 AH / 798 AD, and the second fled to the city of Valencia, seeking safety from his nephew the prince;

Charlemagne realized the weaknesses in the states of the upper Andalusian border, and took advantage of the internal Umayyad dispute between Prince Al-Hakam and his two uncles, and the catastrophe was the fall of a large city like Barcelona.

Al-Muqri Al-Tilmisani (d. 1041 AH / 1631 AD) - with insight - noticed the repercussions of this;

He said in his book 'Nafh al-Tayyib': "And his kingdom (= the first ruling) became aggravated, and he started matters himself. During a trial that was between him and his uncle, the infidel enemy seized the opportunity in the Muslim countries, and they went to Barcelona and owned it in the year eighty-five [and one hundred], and the Muslim soldiers were late. below it.”

The gap in the fall


and the truth is that the fall of Barcelona opened the door for the Christian Franks to establish a state called the “Spanish gap” or “the Gothic gap”, and since then it has become a thorn in the side of Muslims in Andalusia, and it has developed with time until it became the “Continent of Catalonia” which later united with the Kingdom of Argon, and ended the eastern side of the Islamic presence in Andalusia later;

The betrayal that appeared at the end of the second century AH caused the fall and collapse of Andalusia over several centuries!

When the grip of the Umayyad state weakened in Andalusia after the death of the Caliph Al-Hakam Al-Mustansir in the year 366 AH / 977 AD, and his young son Hisham al-Muayyad Billah (d. 403 AH / 1013 AD) to the helm of power;

The arrangement of the state’s order was made to his custodian Al-Mansour bin Abi Amer (d. 392 AH / 1003 AD), who was close to the mother of the young caliph named Sobh Al-Bashkaniyah (d. 390 AH / 1001 AD approximately, and is attributed to the country of the Basques = the Spanish Basque Country).

Ibn Abi Amer, with his ingenuity, was able to eliminate his rival, the vizier al-Makin in the Umayyad court, Jaafar bin Othman al-Mushafi (d. 372 AH / 983 AD).

But in front of Ibn Abi Amer’s ambitions, a stumbling block remained, which is his son-in-law, the strong military commander Ghaleb bin Abd al-Rahman al-Nasiri (d. 371 AH / 982 AD), the owner of outstanding heroism and victories in the Andalusian and Moroccan arenas, as commander-in-chief of the land and naval forces and “Sheikh al-Muwali as a whole and the Knight of Andalusia on that day is not Defended by him", as Ibn Adhari al-Marrakchi (d. about 695 AH / 1296 AD) says in his book 'Al Bayan Al-Maghrib'.

This is after the two men contemplated the exclusion of the Qur'an from the sphere of influence in the corridors of the Umayyad court.

Ghaleb Al-Nasiri realized the danger of the Minister Ibn Abi Amer and his goals aimed at dominating the reins of power, especially that he "controlled the city (= the capital Cordoba) in such a way that the people of the Presence forgot about the ancestors of the competent people and those in charge of politics";

According to Ibn Adhari.

However, Al-Nasiri - instead of reaching an understanding with his opponent or engaging in an internal confrontation with him - immediately decided to declare an alliance with the Christian enemies who had repeatedly befuddled and defeated them, led by Ramiro III (d. 375 AH / 985 AD), the king of Lyon, who allowed him to seek refuge in him.

Al-Maqri says: “Ghalib joined the Christians and enlisted them, and Ibn Abi Amer met him with those with him from the armies of Islam, so fate decreed Ghaleb’s doom.

However, that ancient betrayal in the history of the Umayyads in Andalusia;

It became a phenomenon in the era of the Taifas (422-484 AH/1032-1091 AD) and those who followed them.

This is because they competed to offer the duties of loyalty, obedience and tribute to the Christian kings of Leon and Castile, even at the expense of their religion and their country, hoping for them to defeat their opponents from the kings of other sects, and this was evident in the era of Alfonso VI (d. Al-Mu'tamid ibn Abbad (d. 488 AH/1095AD), King of Seville and Cordoba.

The scholar Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi (d. 456 AH/1065 AD) witnessed this dark era of his country’s history, and saw the betrayals of the complicit cult kings who paid the tribute to the kings of Castile, who sold their homelands at a cheap price, so he wrote with grief and anger describing their unbridled willingness to betray.

In this regard, Ibn Hazm says in “Risala al-Tkhlas Lujojoh al-Khalih”: “By God, if they knew that in the worship of crosses it would take their affairs in line with them, they would hasten to it. Fill them with bells, may God curse them all and give them one of his swords.”

Demolition shovels


Alfonso VI was able 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-Mamoun bin Dhul-Nun, king of Toledo (d. 467 AH / 1074 AD) and his grandson, Prince Al-Qadir bin Dhul-Nun (d. 485 AH / 1092 AD), that cowardly loser whom the King of Castile was asking for “money in turn, By handing over some of his fortresses close to the frontiers, from which he has already received secret fortresses, Faturia, and Qanalesh, all of this, and he who is unable to repay them, is compelled to satisfy him.”

According to Annan's narration, quoting from a historical study on Ibn Abbad written by the Dutch orientalist Reinhart Dozy (d. 1300 AH / 1883 AD).

Al-Qadir was not satisfied with betraying the surrender of the fortresses to his enemy, but also the overthrow of Toledo, the capital of his kingdom, after he withdrew from it in order for Alfonso to enter it and be lost from the lands of Islam since 478 AH/1085 AD;

He went even further in his betrayal by providing military aid to Alfonso to occupy Valencia.

Al-Muqari says: "The tyrant Ibn Adfonush (= Alfonso) had become worse, when the air was empty of the place of the caliphate state (= the Umayyad caliphate in Andalusia), and the Arabs' burden on his shoulders eased, so he swept the rugs, and harassed Ibn Dhul-Nun until he took from his hand Toledo, so he departed for him in the year four hundred and seventy-eight, and it was stipulated that he should support him against the people of Valencia, so he accepted his condition, and Ibn Adfoush handed it over to him;

Indeed;

The forces of the Castilians entered Valencia and wreaked havoc, looting and sabotage there, and they ordered Al-Qadir bin Dhul-Nun as a ruler subordinate to them. .

The Balenians seized their king, traitor to his country and people, and the leader of their revolution, Jaafar bin Jahaf (d. 488 AH/1095 AD) killed him "with his hand... and his head was carried on a stick that used to go around the markets and railways, and Ibn Jahaf contained what was with him, and his body was thrown into a swamp, and a man traversed it. With it on a door covered with a floor mat, and buried it without a shroud” in the month of Ramadan in the year 485 AH / 1092 AD, at a terrible end that was repeated in different ways with many of the traitors of the rulers!

Perhaps Ibn Hazm's call - the advanced one mentioned - against these subservient kings was answered when the Almoravids intervened to protect what was left of Andalusia, and their sultan Yusuf bin Tashfin (d. Andalusia since the beginning of the forties of the sixth century AH

But the defeat of the Almohads in the famous 'Battle of the Uqab' (= Uqbah collection) in 609 AH / 1212 AD opened the door wide for the emergence of many treacherous and colluding monotheistic rulers and princes with the Christian enemy, determined to restore Andalusia to its rule and expel Muslims from it.

Employment


and Christianity The Almohad princes were divided against themselves after the ascension of Sultan Abdul Wahed bin Yusuf bin Abdul-Mumin Al-Muwahidi in the year 620 AH / 1223 AD, when his nephew, the governor of the Andalusian East - and his capital Murcia - objected to his pledge of allegiance to Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Yaqoub al-Muwahidi (d. 624 AH / 1227 AD). Who declared himself a new sultan nicknamed "the just", and owed him most of the Andalusian island. His cousin, Wali Jian and Bayasah Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abdul-Mumin Al-Muwahidi (d. 623 AH / 1226 AD) pledged allegiance to him.

As for Abu Zayd Ibn Muhammad al-Muhawdi - the governor of Valencia, Dania, Shatiba, and the brother of al-Bayasi - he rejected this pledge of allegiance.

Ibn Khaldun (d. 808 AH / 1406 AD) - in his history 'Lessons' - says that because of this division between these brothers, "the strife worsened, and each took his command to the tyrant (= Fernando III), and they took him away from many of the gaps, and the consciences of the people of that were worried. Andalus"!!

Soon, al-Bayasi turned against his cousin “Al-Adil” and called for himself and was nicknamed “Al-Dhafir”.

As Annan says;

Al-Bayasi to confront his cousin “sent to Fernando III (d. 650 AH / 1252 AD) the King of Castile to seek victory with him, and we know - since the days of the sects - what was the price paid by the Christian kings for this aid, as [the price] was always a piece of the remains of Andalusia given without reservation, along with submission and obedience. Al-Bayasi did not deviate from this painful rule!!

Ibn Adhari al-Marrakchi says - in “Al Bayan al-Maghrib” - that al-Bayasi “disobeyed the monotheists, and sought help from the Christians against them and guided them to the faults of those countries…, so they owned the money, killed the men, insulted the harem and the children, then entered with them the fortress of Beja and Lusha and other Islamic fortresses.”

The Moroccan historian Ibn Abi Zara Al-Fassi (d. 726 AH / 1326 AD) - in 'Al-Anis al-Mutrib' - comments on what this traitor did by saying: "Al-Bayasi gave the fortress of Shalabtra to the Christians, and yesterday (the Almohad sultan) Al-Nasir (d. 610 AH / 1213AD) took the money Glorious until the Muslims owned it!!

Al-Bayasi's betrayal did not stop there.

Rather, Ibn Abd al-Moneim al-Hamiri (d. 900 AH / 1506 AD) says - in 'Al-Rawd al-Mu'attar' - that he "walked with Alfinch (= Fernando III) to take the strongholds of Islam in his name, so he entered Qiyata (= a city near Jiyan) with the sword, killing the enemy in creation and capturing others. And her speech was horrible and repulsed by ears and hearts, then [Al-Bayasi] walked to Lusha - from the work of Granada - and fought its people and they fought him, and they made him hear what angered him, so the Christians empowered them, so they killed them the most deadly."

Rather, Ibn Adhari accuses al-Bayasi of having committed "heinous things, including the fact that he entered the religion of Christianity and was an old man, to achieve his ambitions for power - so we ask God for well-being and a good outcome"!!

Then Al-Bayasi wanted to seize the city of Seville and its surroundings, but he was defeated and returned to Cordoba, whose people had hated him for his betrayal and alliance with the Christians, so they revolted against him and killed him in 623 AH / 1226 AD “and his head was carried to Seville.”

وعلى خُطى البياسي في الانخراط في حلف الأعداء وتسليمهم حصون الإسلام بل واعتناق ديانتهم؛ سار أخوه أبو زيد عندما ثار عليه أحد قادته يسمى زيّان ابن مَرْدَنيش (ت 637هـ/1239م) فـ"بعث إليه يلاطفه في الرجوع فامتنع، ولحق السيد أبو زيد بطاغية برشلونة ودخل في دين النصرانية؛ أعاذنا الله من ذلك"؛ كما يقول ابن خلدون.

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.

These are some prominent scenes of the phenomenon of rulers betraying the nation in our ancient history;

We saw in them deadly forms of alliance with the enemy, at the expense of the nation's interests and pride, and out of abhorrent political selfishness.

It is remarkable that the outcome of many of these sultans was a clear loss in their mortal world.

They were killed, expelled, exiled, or despised by the enemy they served, and a curse and abhorrence in the souls of peoples and the pages of history!!