Mohamed Ousman
The Crusaders will be remembered as European Christian barbarians who slaughtered thousands of innocent Muslims.
The latter were forced to launch jihad to overturn almost a century of humiliation and subjugation.
Notwithstanding the bloody Crusades, sectarian Sunnis and sectarian Shi‘is selectively read the Qurʾan, sunnah and history to vindicate their self-righteousness and saved sect perception.
They cherry-pick from the Qurʾan, sunnah and history whatever enables them to score sectarian points against each other.
In this mutually destructive and self-defeating process, invaluable lessons are lost by the average Muslims.
They are either ignorant of our common history or refuse to learn from the treachery and betrayals of power hungry rulers.
During our contemporary era Muslims, have made some spectacular gains as a result of the joint struggles and sacrifices of non-sectarian Sunnis and Shi‘is, notwithstanding the recent setbacks.
The sectarian spoilers from both sides, however, are out in full force to disrupt efforts meant to restore the togetherness of Muslims.
Of course, sectarian Sunnis and sectarian Shi‘is are funded and enabled by the zionist-imperialist-Wahhabi axis of evil to wreak havoc among the struggling and sacrificing Muslims.
There are Shi‘i sectarians and there are Sunni sectarians.
The difference between them is that the mature leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran does not bolster the toxic sectarian narrative, especially among Shi‘i sectarians. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the self-styled leaders from colonized Hejaz (mislabeled Saudi Arabia) who claim to represent Sunni Muslims.
These Saudi Bedouins spare no effort to enable Sunni sectarians and their sectarian narrative.
Regrettably, nowadays, Sunni sectarians seem to get a kick out of cherry picking and presenting information about the treachery and collaboration of the Fatimi “Shi‘i” dynasty with the Crusaders.
Their added emphasis is on the “Shi‘i” description rather than the Fatimi description. They use these descriptions in order to try to drive a perpetual wedge within the House of Islam.
Little is presented regarding the treachery and collaboration of the Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty.
This article reviews the treachery of self-serving rulers whose quest for power drove them to disregard Islamic principles.
As information about the treachery of the Fatimi “Shi‘i” dynasty and its collaboration with the Crusaders is already widespread, the focus of this article will be on the treachery and collaboration of the Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty.
It must be noted that this does not mean that Sunnis and Shi‘is are naturally treacherous.
At the popular level, Sunnis and Shi‘is are good-hearted Muslims, but some treacherous rulers may have hailed from their ranks who were not honorable.
Ibn Jubayr, known for his praise of the “Sunni” ruler, Salahuddin, and for disparaging the previous Fatimi “Shi‘i” dynasty, passed through Palestine in 1184CE and said that the Muslims and the Crusaders harmoniously inhabited countless agricultural villages where political and military alliances, commerce and the exchange of science and ideas were the norm.
Do the Sunni sectarians who selectively cite only the treachery and collaboration of the Fatimi “Shi‘i” dynasty have any comment about this?
Despite Muslims under the leadership of Salahuddin vanquishing the Crusaders, subsequent power hungry rulers from the Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty would routinely promise Al Quds (Jerusalem), including Al Masjid Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock, to the Crusaders whenever internal hostilities among them intensified.
Sibt ibn al-Jawzi provides an account regarding Emperor Frederick II, who led the Sixth Crusade in 1228-1229CE.
In it he says that King Kamil, the last powerful ruler of the Ayyubi dynasty and nephew of Salahuddin, negotiated peace with the Crusaders.
According to these negotiations, he shared Al Quds with them.
Another account suggests that he gave Al Quds to the emperor after which revolts ensued in the lands of Islam.
It appears that in battling his own family for the throne of Egypt and Syria, this king opted for a diplomatic settlement with the Crusaders because he could not defend the Quds front at the expense of surviving on his throne.
On this occasion, the humiliation was such that King Kamil even voluntarily silenced the mu’adh’dhin during the emperor’s presence out of respect for the emperor and the adhan was not called in Al Quds (Jerusalem).
Why do the Sunni sectarians not cite this treachery and collaboration of the Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty?
Two decades earlier, amidst preparations for the Fourth Crusade (1202-4CE), Salahuddin’s brother, King Adil, had his son-cum-Minister Kamil (the king to be), strike a deal with Venice, the conduit of the Crusaders.
Kamil offered the crusaders usage of Egyptian ports in exchange for them not attacking Egypt.
The Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty struck a deal with the Crusaders in order to neutralize the Egyptian front so that they could secure their throne against threats from other Muslims.
In 1219, in order to quell a rebellion in Cairo, King Kamil offered Holy Land North to the Crusaders in exchange for a 30-year truce.
Al Quds could not be defended, because his brother, Mu‘azzam, had destroyed the city walls.
Notwithstanding the treachery of these rulers, Muslims eventually liberated Al Quds from the Crusaders but what is apparent is that these rulers disregarded Islamic sentiments, traditions, masjids and shrines.
For them, Al Quds was a bargaining chip and hence, by 1229CE, King Kamil signed a treaty in terms of which Al Quds, Bethlehem, Nazareth, etc. were transferred to the Crusaders in exchange for a 10-year truce.
The Muslims retained Al Masjid Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock.
This truce with the Crusaders enabled him to focus on regaining Syria from his nephew.
Once again, in 1239CE, as a result of the disagreement and hostility of Al-Salih Ismail Ayyubi, who ruled Damascus, with Al-Salih Ayyubi, who ascended the throne of Egypt after Kamil, the former allied with the Crusaders and promised them Al Quds!
Earlier, in 1187CE, before the treachery of the Ayyubi “Sunni” dynasty, Muslims had liberated Al Quds under the leadership of Salahuddin Ayyubi.
It is extremely important to recall that Salahuddin did not have a serious bad reputation among the Ithna Ashari Shi‘is.
In fact, Salahuddin’s harshest critics were Sunni historians such as Ibn Al-Athir and Al-Maqrizi.
The Shi‘i historian, Ibn Abi Tayy, praised Salahuddin.
He wasn’t the only Shi‘i of the time to do so.
He criticized Salahuddin’s master, Nur al-Din of the Zangi dynasty for his anti-Shi‘i sectarianism.
Nur al-Din had attempted to take over the Fatimi state after having initially supported the Fatimi minister, Shawar, to reclaim his ministerial position.
This attempted coup prompted Shawar to ally with the Crusaders against the Zangi dynasty.
In contrast to Ibn Abi Tayy, the Shi‘i scholar, Abu Turab of Baghdad, cursed Salahuddin for ending Fatimi rule in Egypt.
Despite having no Divine legitimacy, the tribal Abbasi monarchy in Baghdad was viewed as an Islamic central authority while the Fatimi dynasty in Egypt was viewed as a rogue state. Complicating the situation further was the latter’s creed and jurisprudential doctrine which were widely rejected.
Yet, Salahuddin Ayyubi dealt with the rulers of the Fatimi dynasty in a non-sectarian manner.
He was a unifier who knew how to prioritize under emergency conditions.
He was cognizant of the Crusaders approaching from the west and the Mongols approaching from the east and did not make their task easier by stirring sectarian divisions.
In fact, it was when the Shi‘i Fatimi dynasty sought help from Nur al-Din of the Sunni Zangi dynasty in Syria that Salahuddin became a minister in the Fatimi state.
He fought the Crusaders under the Fatimi banner notwithstanding differences with their creed and jurisprudential doctrine.
Even as a senior military leader, he remained loyal to the Fatimi dynasty.
When he became the king of Egypt he dealt with remnants of the Fatimi dynasty with wisdom and mercy.
Two historians, viz. Ibn Shaddad, in Al-Nawadir Al-Sultaniyya wa Al-Mahasin Al-Yusufiya and Abu Shama in Kitab Al-Rawdatayn fi Tarikh Al-Dawlatyn relate that when Nur al-Din Zangi ordered Salahuddin to publicly pray for the Abbasi rulers as a sign of allegiance to them and opposition to the Fatimi dynasty, Salahuddin apologized and refused.
He did not stir up sectarian divisions knowing that the Fatimi dynasty enjoyed popular support in Egypt.
When the Fatimi ruler passed away, he did not rejoice as sectarians do today.
Rather, he grieved over him, offered condolences and fulfilled the deceased ruler’s last testament.
However, under persistent pressure from Nur al-Din, he eventually carried out the order to publicly pray for the Abbasi rulers when the Fatimi ruler fell extremely ill—an act that he later came to regret.
When remnants of the Fatimi dynasty began an insurgency, attempting to assassinate Salahuddin and collaborating with the Crusaders, he dealt with them based on their actions, not their ideology or theology.
It is noteworthy to mention that among the insurgents were also fanatical Sunnis who were dissatisfied with Salahuddin’s wisdom, patience, gradualism and approach to unity.
Also noteworthy is the fact that Salahuddin did not dispense collective punishment.
At the end of the initial legal process, only eight insurgents were executed.
Few Muslims have matured to realize that Sunnis and Shi‘is constitute one Ummah that must face the enemies of Islam and the Muslims together.
Muslims urgently need to de-emphasize differences and accept Muslims from another background without ex-communicating them from the House of Islam or considering them a threat inside the House of Islam.
The unwillingness to mature have caused historical tensions to snow-ball to the extent that some Muslims sell-out Islam and Muslims if they are permitted to practice their “sectarian understanding of Islam” under zionist and imperialist regimes.
Sectarians are more loyal to zionist and imperialist regimes than a government that understands Islamic history differently from them.
They would forsake Islamic unity for the sake of a sectarian reading of history.
A regime under threat from a militia loyal to a Khalifa/Imam would become loyal to zionists and imperialists or would try to play off one against the other.
Similarly, an insurrection threatening a regime would pledge loyalty to zionists and imperialists or would try to play off one against the other.
Do the Qur’an and the Prophet feature into these expedient decisions?
This is an important question to address because even in a country like the United States—the great Satan, which supports Israel against the Palestinians and antagonizes the Islamic State in Iran—it is one of the safest places for Shi‘i sectarians to practice their sectarian understanding of Islam.
In it, they can spread Shi‘i sectarianism and prosper financially compared to Muslim countries like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, etc. where they are threatened by the regimes because they understand Islamic history differently.
Yet, Islamic history is not a history of conflict between Sunnis and Shi‘is.
History shows that on occasion, the Crusaders were willing to enter into treaties with Muslims of any sect.
Or, they provided safe haven for Muslim dissidents who may have disliked the ruler of a neighboring Muslim state in order to advance their agenda of domination.
Not much has changed since.
The Pahlavi dynastic regime in Iran was “Shi‘i” as is the Aliyev dynastic regime in Azerbaijan.
They strategically allied themselves with the zionists and imperialists in order to survive on their thrones.
Iran formed part of the zionists’ periphery doctrine until the Islamic Revolution led by Imam Khomeini overthrew that dynastic regime.
Today, the numerous tin-pot Arabian dictatorial regimes are “Sunni”.
They too are in a strategic alliance with the zionists and imperialists so that they can survive on their thrones.
That has been the case from the days of the Arab Peace Initiative to Oslo to the Abraham Accords.
The history of subjugation from a millennium ago during the Crusades has become our contemporary predicament where-in the zionists and imperialists now support regimes and create movements which are used to destabilize or overthrow governments that resist their domination and hegemony.
This re-run of history highlights the need for Muslims to learn from the bitter lessons of history and improve in order to extricate ourselves from our current predicament of subjugation and humiliation.
Muslims can ill-afford a Sunni-Shi‘i schism fueled by illegitimate rulers who use a different interpretation of history to distract and divide Muslims from our common enemies.
And do as you are told by Allah and His Apostle; and do not [allow yourselves to] be at discord with one another, lest you lose heart and your moral strength desert you. And persevere: for, verily, Allah is with those who persevere in hardship (The Ascendant Qur’an, Surat Al Anfal, verse 46).
No comments:
Post a Comment