The best of people are those of my era, then those after, then those after them

Chapter 4

The accusations against al Tusi and Ibn al ‘Alqami

These two individuals face multiple accusations in relation to their participation in the collapse of the Abbasid Caliphate. Some people have argued the accusations and attempted to justify the actions of these two individuals or deny whatever possible, while believing the reason of these accusations to be mere enmity and religious controversies.

So, what is the reality?

To answer this question, we will present these accusations and determine whether they are mere speculation of enemies and opposition or are they really consistent with the beliefs and principles of the Shia creed and has any Shia ever admitted to these infidelities. Before beginning, if Allah wills, I would like to mention that I endeavour to present most statements in the argument of these accusations from Shia books and references, unbiased sources or sources based on Mongol history while seldomly making mention of references of the Ahlus Sunnah scholars. This is mostly to explain the understanding of other than them from the previous references.

I beseech Allah for ability, assistance and fair judgement.

Accusations against al Tusi

1. His treachery of the Ismailiyyah

Al Tusi had achieved such a lofty status among the Ismailiyyah that they regarded him as a master of all sciences. He was also their general Wazir.[1]

‘Arif Tamur mentions:

وأما الإسماعيليون فكانوا يطلقون عليه أسم الداعي الأجل وحجة الإمام وداعي الدعاة

The Ismaili’s would refer to him as “Caller of the era”, “Authoritative leader” and “Best of callers.”[2]

With all of this, he considered his life with them to be the most miserable and difficult, calling it a painful punishment, helplessness, a great regret, and so on. He describes it in his last writing, Sharh al Isharat, which he authored while residing in the fortress of the Ismaili’s.[3]

As for the cause of these sentiments, some historians attribute it to the reason of his coming to the Ismaili’s, as they had threatened and forced him to take up the position among them.

Another group is of the opinion that he eagerly presented himself before Nasir al Din when he invited him; however, something occurred which made Nasir al Din apprehend him. Muhammad al Zinjani, who was a Shia, mentions that it was due to a difference between his beliefs and theirs.[4]

The above is regarding his relationship with them, but what about his role in the collapse of their empire?

We obviously do not defend the Ismailiyyah as they were responsible for the destruction of the Muslim Ummah from all ideological and political perspectives.

‘Arif Tamur describes the situation, and he was with them at that time:

يوم كانت شوكة في عين الدولة العباسية وغيرها من الدول والإمارات

A day which was like a thorn in the eye of the Abbasid Empire together with the other dynasties and emirates.[5]

As it is said regarding them, “A creed whose apparent is Tashayyu’ whilst its reality is disbelief and atheism”; however, we intend to expose the demeanour of this individual and his manner of dealing with those whom he served.

Al Mashhadani narrates from ‘Abdul Amir al A’sam that al Tusi secretly corresponded with the Mongols around about 650 AH.[6]

This correspondence has been praised by ‘Arif Tamur in the following statement:

الذي لا يسعني إلا الإشادة بمقدرته وسعة إطلاعه

I can only commend his ability and his great insight.[7]

Bear in mind that in the year 651 AH, Monku Khan issued an order commanding his brother Halaku to invade the western regions.[8]

Al Hamdhani mentions:

فلما أن كان منكوخان يودع أخاه كلفه بأن يرسل إليه الخواجه نصيرالدين بعد الاستيلاء على قلاع الملاحدة

When bidding his brother farewell, Monku Khan assigned to him Khawajah Nasir al Din after the capture of the apostate stronghold.[9]

The above testifies to the correspondence, while strengthening the possibility of its authenticity.

Al Hamdhani also mentions:

وفي ذلك الوقت هجوم المغول على الإسماعيلين كان مولانا السعيد الخواجة نصير الدين الطوسي الذي كان أكمل وأعقل العالم وجماعة آخرون من الأطباء… يقيمون لدى ملك الإسماعيلية مكرهين … وكانوا قد ملوا ملازمة الملاحدة ونفروا منهم ومالوا إلى هولاكو إلى أقصى حد ومن قبل كانوا يرغبون في ذلك فصاروا يتشاورون سراً لكي يجعلوا هذا الملك يخضع لهولاكو على الوجه الأحسن والطريق الأسهل وانضم إليهم كثر من الغرباء والمسلمين … ولهذا السبب لم يدخروا وسعاً في حث خورشاه على الخضوع والطاعة وصاروا يخوفونه مغبة المقاومة وعدم التسليم فاستجاب لنصحهم

During the attack of the Mongols upon the Ismailis, Khawajah Nasir al Din al Tusi who was the greatest and most knowledgeable scholar together with a group of others, were forced to remain in the Ismaili territory although they were fed up by residing with them apostates and despised them. They had established deep ties with Halaku as was always their intent, and they began secretly seeking his counsel in preparation for the reigns to fall into his hands in the easiest and best manner possible by joining forces with Muslim and foreign masses. For this reason, they spared no effort in convincing Khurshah to surrender and obey by scaring him with the consequences of resistance and opposition, which resulted in him accepting their advice.[10]

This was the era in which Ibn al ‘Alqami tricked the Khalifah.

Al Mirza al Nuri al Tabarsi mentions:

ثم لما قرب إيلخان المشهور بهولاكوخان من قلاع الإسماعيلية لفتح تلك البلاد خرج ولد الملك علاءالدين عن القلعة بإشارة المحقق الطوسي سراً واتصل بخدمة هولاكوخان فلما استشعر هولاكو أنه جاء عنده بإجازة المحقق ومشاورته وافتتح القلعة ودخل بها أكرم المحقق غاية الاكرام والاعزاز

When Il Khan, famously known as Halaku Khan, approached the Ismaili territory to conquer those cities, the son of king ‘Ala’ al Din emerged from one of the forts by the secret instruction of Muhaqqiq al Tusi and began serving Halaku Khan. When Halaku conceived that this was by the permission and consultation of Muhaqqiq and that he had opened the fort and granted them entry, he granted Muhaqqiq great honour and respect.[11]

So, the reality is not as explained by Hassan al Amin in his defence of al Tusi that Halaku kept him just for his knowledge and that al Tusi was forced to remain with him.[12] Rather the actual reason is mentioned by the Mongol historian al Hamdhani:

ولما تأكد هولاكو من صدق و إخلاص الخواجه نصير الدين الطوسي و شملهم بعطفه وإنعامه وأعطاهم الخيول اللازمة لحمل أهلهم ومواليهم وأقاربهم مع أتباعهم وخدمهم وأشياعهم وإخراجهم من القلعة وألزمهم حضرته وأبناؤهم حتى اليوم ملازمون للحضرة ، ومقربون من هولاكوخان وأفراد أسرته المشهورين

When Halaku became certain of the truthfulness and sincerity of Khwajah Nasir al Din al Tusi, he showered him with his kindness and favours. He gave him a number of horses to carry his family and close ones, together with his followers, servants, and belongings from the fort. He kept him and his family in his company up until this day making sure they are present and close to Halaku Khan and the famous ones of his family.[13]

Some of the above has been previously mentioned, as well as more, regarding the status of al Tusi in the eyes of Halaku. So, after all of this, can it be said that he was forced? Allah willing, more incidents will be mentioned which will further clarify that he did not act with fear but rather with sincerity to strengthen this empire, when it became clear to him that he could achieve the goals of the creed to which he belonged.

2. His role in the instigation of the war of Iraq and Baghdad

We previously discussed the Shia ruling with regards to the disbelief of the Ahlus Sunnah and permissibility of their killing. We also presented the opinion of al Tusi which echoed the same beliefs; therefore, it is not strange to find that he urged Halaku to invade Baghdad.

Other than the statements mentioned by the Ahlus Sunnah scholars and historians testifying to the occurrence of this instigation, there are statements from some Shia scholars mentioning that al Tusi played a role in the decision of Halaku regarding the invasion of Baghdad. Yes, he and Ibn al ‘Alqami were not the primary motivators, but that does not mean that they played no role in it.

Their scholar of hadith, al Nuri al Tabarsi mentions:

و دخل القلعة ودخل بها هولاكو وأكرم المحقق الطوسي غاية الإكرام والإعزاز وصحبه وارتكب الأمر الكلية حسب رأيه وإجازته فأرغبه المحقق لتسخير عراق العرب فعزم هولاكوخان على فتح بغداد وسخر تلك البلاد والنواحي واستأصل الخليفة العباسي

He entered the fort together with Halaku. Halaku held Muhaqqiq in high esteem by keeping him by his side and orchestrating all matters in accordance to his opinion and permission. Muhaqqiq thereby made Halaku desirous to conquer Southern Iraq, which resulted in Halaku Khan thereafter conquering Baghdad, subjugating those cities, its surroundings, and annihilating the Abbasid Caliphate.[14]

Nazmi Zadah mentions the following in his book Kalsh Khalfa, which is the biography of Kazim Nurus:

من نصير الطوسي أتجه نحو بغداد وبتشويق

Through the persuasion of Nasir al Din, I am proceeding towards Baghdad.[15]

Muhammad Taqi Mudarrisi Ridwi mentions:

وبعد أن فرغ هولاكو من أمر الإسماعيلية فكر بغزو بغداد وتأديب السلطان العباسي فاستشار الخواجه الطوسي وطلب منه أن يتقصى هذه المهمة عبر التنجيم ويخبره بالنتيجة فتأمل الخواجه في طلب هولاكو كثيراً ثم وافاه بما توصل إليه فقال إن الذي يلوح من التنجيم هو أن المستعصم سينتهي أمره أن العراق سيقع تحت تصرف الملك بلا جهد ومشقة وبالغ الخواجه مبالغة جعلت هولاكو يثق بكلامه حتى شد رحاله تلقاء بغداد وهو مطمئن البال

After invading the Ismailiyyah, Halaku contemplated invading Baghdad and disciplining the Abbasid ruler. He consulted Khawajah al Tusi and asked him to examine this plan by means of astrology and to advise him with the outcome. After pondering deeply over the request of Halaku, Khawajah came up with an answer that spued Halaku on further. He said, “The stars indicate that Musta’sim  will soon die and Iraq will fall into the hands of a king without any difficulty whatsoever.” Khawajah exaggerated to such an extent in convincing Halaku that he immediately began preparations towards Baghdad without even giving it second thought.[16]

Upon looking at this, can it still be said that he was afraid and forced? Ponder over the above statement, “Khawajah exaggerated to such an extent…”

Muhammad al Mudarrisi also mentions the following in the same book:

ويرى القاضي نورالشوشتري شيعي في كتاب مجالس المؤمنين أن الخواجة لما كان الخواجة على علم بتعصب المستعصم مذهبياً وطرق سمعه ما يلاقيه الشيعة من المحن حث هولاكو على غزو بغداد

Qadi Nur al Shushtari al Shia mentions the following in his book Majalis al Mu’minin regarding Khawajah, “When Khawajah found out regarding the ideological fanaticism of Musta’sim  and his manner of dealing with the suffering of the Shia, he persuaded Halaku to invade Baghdad.”[17]

Some astrologers have attempted to praise Halaku upon the invasion on Baghdad from an astrological perspective, as he was a staunch believer of it; however, Nasir al Din al Tusi caused this attempt to fail. Hereunder is a statement in connection with this incident, as it appears in Jami’ al Tawarikh of al Hamdhani:

وكان الخان يتشاور مع أركان الدولة وأعيان الحضرة في أمر تصميمه على الزحف إلى بغداد فكان كل منهم يبدي رأيه حسب ما يعتقد ثم طلب حسام الدين المنجم الذي كان مصاحبا له بأمر القائد… وقال له  بين كل ما يبدو لك في النجوم دون مداهنة ولما كانت له جرأة بسب تقربه فقد قال للملك بصوره مطلقة أنه ليس ميمونا قصد أسرة الخلافة والزحف بالجيش إلى بغداد إذ أن كل ملك حتى زماننا هذا قصد بغداد والعباسيين لم يستمتع بالملك والعمر و إذا لم يصغ الملك إلى كلامي وذهب إلى هناك فستظهر ستة أنواع من الفساد أولها أن تنفق الخيول كلها ويمرض الجنود ثانيها أن الشمس لا تطلع ثالثها أن المطر لا ينزل رابعها تهب ريح صرصر وينهار العالم بالزلازل خامسها لا ينبت النبات في الأرض سادسها أن الملك الأعظم يموت تلك السنة فطلب منه هولاكو خان هادة بصحة هذا الكلام فكتبها المسكين وقال اللامات (بخشيان) والأمراء إن الذهاب إلى بغداد هو عين الصواب بعد ذلك استدعى هولاكو خان الخواجة نصر الدين الطوسي واستشاره فخاف الخواجة وظن الأمر على سبيل الاختبار فقال لن تقع أية واقعة من هذه الأحداث فقال هولاكو إذاً ماذا يكون … قال إن هولاكو خان سيحل محل الخليفة ثم أحضر هولاكو حسام الدين ليتباحث مع الخواجة الذي قال لقد استشهد جمع كثير من الصحابة باتفاق آراء الجمهور وأهل الإسلام ولم يحدث فساد قط ولو قيل إن للعباسين مكرمة خاصة بهم فإن طاهراً جاء من خراسان بأمر المأمون وقتل أخاه محمد الأمين وقتل المتوكل ابنه بالاتفاق مع الأمراء كذلك قتل الأمراء والغلمان المنتصر والمعتز وقتل عدد من الخلفاء على يد جملة من أشخاص فلم تختل الأمور

Halaku consulted with the members of the state and the present notables regarding his decision to invade Baghdad and each one of them gave their opinion according to what they believed. He then summoned the astrologer Hassam al Din who was his companion in the matters of decision making and said to him, “Shed light on what is clear to you from the stars without any flattery.” When he mustered up the courage due to his close proximity, he told the king secretly that he is not happy that he intends to attack the Caliphate and proceed with an army to Baghdad, as every king up to this day who had planned to attack Baghdad and the Abbasids did not enjoy kingship nor life. If you do not believe me and go there, you will face six types of issues:

1. 1. Horses will die and the army will get sick.
   2. The sun will not rise.
   3. There won’t be any rain.
   4. Violent winds will blow and the land will be destroyed by earthquakes.
   5. Plants will not grow in the soil.
   6. The main ruler will die this year.

Halaku then asked him to testify to the veracity of his words which the poor man then wrote down. However, the general public and the leaders were of the opinion that proceeding to Baghdad was the correct course of action. Thereafter Halaku Khan called for Nasir al Din al Tusi to consult with. Khawajah was afraid, thinking it was a test so he said, “None of these things will ever happen.”

Halaku replied, “In that case, what will happen?”

Khwajah replied, “Halaku Khan will soon replace the Khalifah.”

Halaku then called in Hassam al Din to discuss this with Khawajah, who said, “A large number of companions were martyred according to the opinion of the majority and people of Islam and no corruption arose.

ولو قيل إن للعباسين مكرمة خاصة بهم فإن طاهراً جاء من خراسان بأمر المأمون وقتل أخاه محمد الأمين وقتل المتوكل ابنه بالاتفاق مع الأمراء كذلك قتل الأمراء والغلمان المنتصر والمعتز وقتل عدد من الخلفاء على يد جملة من أشخاص فلم تختل الأمور

If it were to be said that the Abbasids have been particularly honoured, then verily Tahir [ibn Hussain ibn Zurayq] came from Khurasan on the order of al Ma’mun and killed his brother Muhammad al Amin. and al Mutawakkil was killed by his own son according to the consensus of the leaders. Similarly, the leaders and the youngsters assassinated al Muntasir and al Mu’taz whilst many other Khulafa’ were slain at the hands of a number of people, yet it did not result in anarchy.[18]

The following is a poem mentioned regarding the above incident:

فأضاء قلب الملك من قول العالم          كأنه زهرة اللعل في الربيع الباكر

The heart of the king was put at ease by the words of the scholar,

As if it were a crimson flower in the beginning of spring.[19]

If we had to believe that he mentioned these words out of fear for his life, then does he also justify the killing of hundreds and thousands of Muslims and letting the Caliphate fall into the hands of idol worshippers as part of saving himself, considering his actions to be justified, although how can this be acceptable from a scholar who is revered, respected, and considered the Reviver of the Seventh Century according to the adherents of his creed? It is prevalent from the previously mentioned narrations that not only did al Tusi not object, but rather commended and encouraged the invasion of Baghdad due to his rancour for the Ahlus Sunnah and their leaders, and as vengeance for the adherents of his creed.

As for the justification that this was the result of the Abbasid’s maltreatment to the Shia, accepting it would be a foolish ignorant act which will render the acceptor worthy of every description of treachery and depravity. However, the actual motivating factor in this is their belief which considers the Ahlus Sunnah the most disbelieving people on the face of the earth, as it has been previously mentioned in the discussion regarding their rulings concerning the Ahlus Sunnah and as previously mentioned regarding his personal opinion concerning the disbelief of the Ahlus Sunnah and the permissibility of shedding their blood.

After the capture of Baghdad, was he remorseful or moved by what occurred to the Muslims? Hereunder are some of the letters he had written to Muslim rulers threatening them on behalf of Halaku. Muhammad Taqiy Mudarrisi mentions:

وبعد غزو بغداد أمر هولاكو الخواجة الطوسي أن يكتب رسالة باللغة العربية حول غزو مدينة السلام وقمع الحاكم العباسي … ثم يرسلها إلى بلاد الشام … وفيما يأتي نص الرسالة… يعلم الملك الناصر أننا نزلنا بغداد سنة ست وخمسين وستمائة فاستأسرنا مالكها وسألنا وسائل فيها وندم واستوجب من العدم وضن بالمال فآل به الأمر إلى ما آل واستبدل نفائس نفيسة نفوساً بذية خسيسة وكان ذلك ظاهرا فوجدوا ما عملوا حاضرا وقد قال القائل إذا تم أمر دنا نقصه ونحن في الاستزادة أما بعد يعلم الملك الناصر و… أنا جند الله خلقنا من سخطه وسلطنا على من حل عليه غضبه

Following the invasion of Baghdad, Halaku commanded Khawajah al Tusi to write letters in Arabic concerning the capture of the peaceful city and subdual of the Abbasid Ruler… which was then sent to Syria. The following is a portion of the letter:… King Nasir should be aware that we have invaded Baghdad during the year 656 AH and the ruler surrendered to us. He asked us for agents in it, he regretted and became worthy of non-existence. He withheld the money so the matter became of how it was and precious valuables were exchanged for evil despicable individuals. What occurred was inevitable and they got what they deserved. Someone once said, “When a matter reaches completion, its retrogression draws closer whilst we are in the state of seeking more.” With regards to the future, King al Nasir should know … I am from the army of Allah, we have been created from His wrath to dominate those who earn His wrath.[20]

Their entire letter is written in this manner and with this spirit. In this, he addressed the Arabs and Muslims in Syria on behalf of the pagan Halaku. It should be clear after this whether his actions were due to fear or in accordance to his beliefs and established principles.

Take a look at another example from these correspondences of his which are mentioned in Jami’ al Tawarikh, Muhakkamah al Tarikh of Muhammad al Mashhadani and other books that make mention of the correspondences of al Tusi regarding the description of their entry into Baghdad. It is an imperative read.[21]

3. His facilitating the massacre of the Khalifah in the presence of Halaku

Ibn al ‘Alqami and al Tusi are both accused of being from those who encouraged Halaku with the killing of the Khalifah, as mentioned in Tabaqat al Shafi’iyyah and al Bidayah wa al Nihayah of Ibn Kathir.[22]

Al Mirza Muhammad Nankabani is among the Shia who makes mention of this matter:

ونقل المؤرخون أن حسام الدين المنجم عرض على هولاكو أن لا يقتل المستعصم لأن له رحم برسول الله ﷺ وليس في قتله مصلحة وإذا ما قتله فإن الأرض ستهتز وتنشق وتخر السماء عليها فرد الخواجة الطوسي كلامه وقال هذه كلها أباطيل ولما تردد هولاكو بعد سماع كلام حسام الدين أشار عليه الخواجة أن يضعوا المستعصم في بساط ويضغطوا عليه قليلا فإذا بان أثر كلام المنجم يترك ، وإلا يضغط عليه حتى تزهق روحه من غير أن يراق دمه فاستحسن هولاكو كلام الخواجة وأمر أن يفعل به كما أشار

Historians have recorded that the Astrologer Hassam al Din suggested to Halaku that he should not take the life of Musta’sim  as he was from the descendants of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and that there was no benefit in his killing, as the earth will shake and the sky will split open upon it. Khawajah al Tusi refuted his suggestion saying that it was all fallacies. When Halaku became reluctant after hearing the words of Hassam al Din, Khawajah advised him to roll Musta’sim  in a rug and squeeze him slowly so that the repercussions mentioned by the Astrologer could be avoided, or else squeeze him until he dies without shedding his blood. Halaku fancied the suggestion of Khawajah and ordered that the Khalifah be killed in that manner.[23]

Mention has been made previously regarding the method used in killing the Khalifah in the chapter regarding the mention of the catastrophe of Baghdad.

Muhammad Taqi al Mudarrisi, a contemporary Shia, comments the following under this subject:

وعلى فرض أن الخواجة ضالعا في ذلك العمل وأنه هو الذي دفع هولاكو إلى قتل الحاكم العباسي فإن هذا العمل إذا كان ذنباً لا يغتفر عند السني المتعصب فهو ليس ذنباً عند الشيعي الذي لا يؤمن بالحكومة العباسي ويرى أن العباسين غصبوا حق آل محمد صلوات الله عليه وعليهم بل هو عنده باعث على التقرب إلى الله زلفى وكسب أجره وثوابه و الخواجة الطوسي كان شيعياً وكان يرى أن الإقدام على هذا العمل تكليف شرعي وواجب ديني فمن هذا المنطلق ليس لهذا الأمر عند الشيعة وقع يذكر حتى يكون داعياً إلى الكفر

Assuming that Khawajah was the cause of this matter, and he was the one who persuaded Halaku to take the life of the Abbasid ruler, it is worthy of note that although this action may be an unforgivable sin in the eyes of extremist Sunnis, it is not regarded as a sin in the eyes of the Shia, who reject the Abbasid rule and believe that they usurped the right of the progeny of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Therefore, he regards it to be a means of gaining proximity to Allah and earning his rewards. Khawajah al Tusi was a Shia who was of the opinion that achieving this was a religious obligation and duty. So, from this perspective, this matter is not of any significance among the Shia for it to be an indication of disbelief.[24]

Considering the above, how can it be said that they endeavour for national unity whereas they consider the massacre of our leaders through the disbelievers to be a means of gaining proximity to Allah? To the extent, that they consider this reason enough to empower the disbelievers over the Ummah, because they consider us to be similar to disbelievers if not worse than them in disbelief.

Let us take a look at the statement of another Ismaili Shia, who is of a similar nature, echoing the same hatred for the Ahlus Sunnah and considers them to be disbelievers, viz. ‘Arif Tamur. He says:

من جهة أخرى … فيجب أن ندخل في حسباننا بأن نصير الدين لم يكن يعتبر المستعصم العباسي خليفة شرعي للمسلمين بل كان يحصر هذه الرتبة بالفاطميين الذين ينحدرون من أسرة الرسول الكريم وبما كان هو السبب بوقوفه موقف اللامبالاة من كارثة بغداد

Looking at it from another angle… it should definitely be taken into account that Nasir al Din did not consider Musta’sim  al ‘Abbasi to be the rightful Khalifah of the Muslims, rather he considered that position to be the right of the Fatimiyyin, those who hail from the progeny of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, so perhaps this was the reason for his stance which was a stance of indifference amidst the catastrophe of Baghdad.[25]

He also mentions:

أليس في هذا قبوله وزارة هولاكو ما يؤكد إسماعيليته ويلبي رغبته بمشاهدة مصير الذين كانوا وراء النكبة الكبرى

Does his role as the Wazir of Halaku not confirm his affiliation to the Ismailiyyah? He was satisfying his desire to witness the end of those who were behind the great catastrophe.[26]

So, this was the harmonious logic, together with the established beliefs of the Shia. As for the tears shed by some of them over the incident of Baghdad and Islam, then it is either crocodile tears, or in keeping with the belief of Taqiyyah regarding which mention has been made previously, or from their general masses who are ignorant of the inception and requisites of this creed and the makeup of a sound disposition.

For this reason, we are not surprised at the words of Muhammad Baqir al Khuwanasari in the biography of Nasir al Din al Tusi:

ومن جملة أمره المشهور المعروف المنقول حكاية استيزار للسلطان المحتشم في محروسة إيران هولاكو خان … ومجيئه في موكب السلطان … إلى دار السلام بغداد لإرشاد العباد وإصلاح البلاد وقطع دابر سلسلة البغي والفساد وإخماد ثائرة الجور والإلباس بإبادة دائرة ملك بني العباس وإيقاع القتل العام في أتباع اولئك الطغاة إلى أن أسال من دما ئهم الأقذار كأمثال الانهار فأنهار بها في ماء دجلة ومنها إلى نار جهنم دار البوار و محل الأشقياء والأشرار

In a nutshell, the famous recognised individual commanded him to act as Wazir for the reticent ruler of the guarded domains of Iran, Halaku Khan ibn Tolui Genghis Khan who was at the time a powerful king of the Tartars and Mongol Turks. He joined the convoy of the powerful king with absolute propensity towards Baghdad the city of peace with the purpose of guiding the people, improving the city, eradicating the ongoing tyranny, and corruption together with its headquarters, by destroying the empire of Banu al ‘Abbas and openly killing the followers of those oppressors until their dirty blood flowed like rivers into the Tigris River and from there into the fire of Jahannum the place of ruin, hardships, and evils.[27]

Some have attempted to explain this stance of al Khuwanasari to be an uncommon stance of the Shia creed motivated by the unjust actions that were carried out and that the Shia creed does not sanction the killing of even a single Muslim, whereas the reality is that the statement of al Khuwanasari is in keeping with the beliefs of the creed and the statement of this claimant also is in keeping with the belief of Taqiyyah!

The libraries of Baghdad

Some Shia books take pride in praising al Tusi regarding his attempt to protect the knowledge, scholars, and the books of Baghdad during the invasion. Among them is al Tabataba’i who mentions the following:

كما استطاع أن ينقذ الكثير من علماء بغداد و مدارسها ومكتباتها وقد سلم بفضل هذا العلم الجليل الكثير من التراث والكتب والمكتبات من سقوط بغداد

He tried to save as much scholars, schools, and libraries as he could. A lot of significant knowledge from the legacy, books, and libraries were saved from the Fall of Baghdad, thanks to his efforts.[28]

He also mentions:

وكان للمحقق نصير الدين الطوسي … الدور الكبير في إنقاذ ما أمكن إنقاذه من العلماء والمكتبات في بغداد

Muhaqqiq Nasir al Din… played a big role in protecting the scholars and libraries of Baghdad as much as he could.[29]

The statements of Hassan al Amin also echo similar sentiments.[30]

However, there are two undeniable things that spoil this fabricated praise:

1. The books that are claimed to have been saved by him in reality had been stolen by him from the libraries and he did not actually save them. ‘Ali al Tabataba’i himself relates this matter from Shakir al Kitbi:

…واتخذ في ذلك خزانة عظيمة فسيحة الأرجاء وملاءها من الكتب التي نهبت من بغداد والشام والجزيرة حتى تجمع فيها زيادة على أربعما ة ألف مجلد

…And he took a ginormous box filled with books that he had stolen from Baghdad, Syria and Arabia, which exceeded 400 000 volumes.[31]

Hassan al Amin mentions similar but mentions the following excuse:

…لإنقاذ أكبر عدد من الكتب وتجميعها

… He accumulated them in an attempt to save a great number of books.[32]

2. It was the Mongols who destroyed the books and libraries of Baghdad as ‘Ali al Tabataba’i quotes from Qutb al Din al Hanafi:

و تراكمت الكتب التي ألقاها التتار في دجلة حتى صارت معبراً يعبر عليه الناس والدواب واسودت مياه دجلة بما ألقي فيها من الكتب

The books were dumped into the Tigris River. Due to the large amount, it piled up and became a bridge for people and animals to cross. The water of the Tigris also turned black due to the great number of books.[33]

It has also been mentioned that he saved whatever could be saved; however, it is more accurate to say that he chose that which suited his beliefs and knowledge. Ibn al Futi who was the student of al Tusi mentions the following in this regard:

سنة اثنتين وستين وست مئة فيه وصل نصير الدين الطوسي إلى بغداد … ثم أنحدر إلى واسط والبصرة وجمع من العراق كتباً كثيرة لأجل الرصد

During the year 662 AH, Nasir al Din came to Baghdad … He then proceeded to Wasit and Basrah and collected many books from Iraq for the purpose of study.[34]

Similar to the fate of the libraries of Baghdad was the fate of the Ismaili state libraries as mentioned in the following by ‘Ata’ Malik al Juwayni and attested to by the officials of Halaku who invaded Baghdad after invading the Ismailiyyah:

وعندما كنت بأسفل لمسر استولت علي الرغبة في تفقد مكتبة آلموت التي استطا ر صيتها في الأقطار فعرضت على السلطان فتقبل السلطان طلبي بقبول حسن وأعطى الأوامر اللازمة ، فتوجهت لتفقد المكتبة وأخرجت كل ما وجدت من المصاحف ونفائس الكتب وأحرقت ما بقي وكان متعلقاً بضلالتهم وغوايتهم

Upon reaching the depths of the Lambesar castle, the desire to destroy the library of Alamut overcame me, so I proposed it to the King who keenly accepted thereby giving the necessary instructions. I then proceeded to destroy the library by removing all of the Qur’ans and precious books that I could find and setting the rest alight as it was filled with their false propaganda and errors.[35]

As for his efforts in protecting the scholars, it was only confined to Shia scholars and not the general scholars of Baghdad. We have not come across anything with regards to his special effort except that of saving al ‘Alqami which isn’t something strange as we have previously cited narrations attesting to the bond between al Tusi and Ibn al ‘Alqami.

Muhammad Mudarrisi al Shia also cites a narration mentioning the intercession of al Tusi and Ibn al ‘Alqami for Ibn Abi al Hadid and his brother from being slain in the presence of Halaku.[36]

The rest of the scholars were slain as mentioned previously in the statement of ‘Ali al Tabataba’i and other historians, under the discussion of the destruction of books.

‘Arif Tamur also attests to this in his following statement:

وعند اجتياح المغول لبغداد لم يتوقف عن أعمال الخير فا ستحصل من هولاكو على أمر باستثناء المسيحيين والشيعة والعا ئلات الغير إسلامية من الاستباحة وهكذا بالنسبة للعلماء وجال الفكر والدين

Their good continued even during the invasion of Baghdad. Halaku was asked to order the exception of Christians, Shia, and other non-believing families from being slain. Similar was the exception in relation to the scholars and intellectuals.[37]

He also mentions:

فأعلن أنه من أتباع مذهبهم الإثنى عشري  وبأنه ما جاء إلى بغداد مع هولاكو إلا لحمايتهم من خطر المغول وعزلهم عن العباسين السنة

He announced that he was an adherent of their creed, al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah and that his coming to Baghdad with Halaku was to protect them from the danger of the Mongols and to release them from the Sunni Abbasids.

Ibn al Qayyim mentions the following in this regard:

ولما انتهت النوبة إلى وزير الملاحدة النصير الطوسي وزير هولاكو شفا نفسه من أتباع الرسول و أهل دينه فعرضهم على السيف حتى شفا إخوانه من الملاحدة وا شتفى هو فقتل الخليفة والقضاة والفقهاء والمحدثين واستبقى الفلاسفة والمنجمين والطبائعيين والسحرة ونقل إليهم أوقاف المدارس والمساجد والربط إليهم

When the matter reached the apostate Wazir al Nasir al Tusi, the Wazir of Halaku, he removed himself from the followers of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his religion, and presented them to the sword to the extent that he sought only intercession for his own apostate brothers. So, the Khalifah together with the Judges and Jurists were slain, whereas the Philosophers, Astrologers, Physicists and sorcerers were spared and the endowments and affairs of the educational institutes and Masajid were assigned to them.[38]

In the foreword of Qawa’id al Ahkam of their scholar al Hilli, the writer mentions:

وبفضل هذا الشيخ المعظم وتدبير نجا أهل الكوفة والحلة والمشهدين الشريفين من القتل والنهب والسبي وذلك حين غزا التتار العراق وعملوا ما عملوا

By virtue of this great Sheikh and planning, the people of Kufah, Hillah, and the two noble shrines were saved from being slain, robbed, or even taken as captives. This all occurred during the Tartar invasion of Baghdad when many wrongs were perpetrated.[39]

The above are all the locations of the Shia.

We end this discussion of al Tusi with the words of Edward Granville Browne who mentions the following:

We should not lose sight of the fact… that despite his writings in the topics of ethics and religion, he showed ingratitude to his Ismaili hosts just as he assisted in the massacre of the Khalifah in a manner that pleased an apostate blood shedding pagan such as Halaku…[40]

[1] A’yan al Shia, 9/415.

[2] Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 43.

[3] A’yan al Shia, 9/416; Al ‘Allamah al Khwajah Nasir al Din al Tusi li Muhammad Taqi Mudarrisi.

[4] A’yan al Shia, 9/416.

[5] Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 57.

[6] Muhakkamah al Tarikh, pg. 70, 71; Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 22-46.

[7] Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 40, 132.

[8] Muhakkamah al Tarikh, pg. 70, 71.

[9] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 203.

[10] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 249.

[11] Khatimah al Mustadrak, 2/425.

[12] Al Ghazwa al Maghuli li Hassan al Amin, pg. 118-154; A’yan al Shia, 9/416.

[13] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 257.

[14] Khatimah al Mustadrak, 2/425.

[15] Kalsh Khalfa, pg. 127.

[16] Nasir al Din al Tusi Hayatuhu wa ‘Atharuhu, pg. 21.

[17] Nasir al Din al Tusi Hayatuhu wa ‘Atharuhu, pg. 22.

[18] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 278-280.

[19] A’yan al Shia, 9/92; Nasir al Din al Tusi li al Mudarrisi, pg. 21.

[20] Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 30.

[21] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 296; Muhakkamah al Tarikh, pg. 87.

[22] Tabaqat al Shafi’iyyah, 8/271; Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 13/214,283.

[23] Qisas al ‘Ulama’, pg. 287; Al ‘Allamah al Khwajah Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 28.

[24] Al ‘Allamah al Khwajah Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 69.

[25] Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 89.

[26] Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 62.

[27] A’yan al Shia, 9/157; Rawdat al Jinan fi Ahwal al ‘Ulama’ wa al Sadat, pg. 578; Muhakkamah al Tarikh li Muhammad al Mashhadani, pg. 101; Footnote 1 of Bihar al Anwar li al Majlisi, 31/104.

[28] Riyad al Masa’il, 2/26.

[29] Riyad al Masa’il, 2/27.

[30] Al Ghazwa al Maghuli, pg. 156; A’yan al Shia, 9/416.

[31] Riyad al Masa’il, 2/26; Khatimah al Mustadrak, 2/423; Foreword of al Risalah al Sa’idah.

[32] Al Ghazw al Maghuli, pg. 156.

[33] Riyad al Masa’il, 2/7.

[34] Al Hawadith al Jami’ah, pg. 382.

[35] Jaha Nakshay, pg. 271.

[36] Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 29-113.

[37] Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 77, 88-89.

[38] Ighatha al Lahfan, 2/380.

[39] Foreword of Qawa’id al Ahkam, 1/14.

[40] Tarikh al Adab fi Iran, pg. 588; Muhakkamah al Tarikh, pg. 108.

The accusations against al ‘Alqami

The accusation against him of treachery

Ibn al ‘Alqami has been accused of treachery and numerous correspondences with the Mongols by the Historians of Islam. Some of them are as follows:

1. Abu Shamah who was a witness to the incident mentions it in his work, Al Dhayl ‘ala al Rawdatayn.[1]
2. Al Juzajani in his work, Tabaqat Nasiri.
3. Ahmed ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab al Nuwayri in his work, Nihayah al Irb.
4. Al Dhahabi in his work, Duwal al Islam.
5. 5.’Umar ibn al Wardi in Tatimmah al Mukhtasar.
6. Ibn Shakir al Kutubi in Fawat al Wafayat.
7. 7.’Abdullah al Shirazi—who was an adherent of Ibn al ‘Alqami’s Shia creed—in his work, Wassaf al Hadarah.
8. Taj al Din al Subki in Tabaqat al Shafi’iyyah.[2]
9. Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah.[3]
10. Al Malik al Ashraf al Ghassani in al ‘Asjad al Masbuk.
11. Ibn Khaldun in Tarikh Ibn Khaldun.
12. Al Maqrizi in al Suluk li Ma’rifah Duwal al Muluk.
13. Ibn Taghribirdi in al Nujum al Zahirah.
14. Al Suyuti in Tarikh al Khulafa’.
15. 15.Hassan al Diyar Bakri in Tarikh al Khamis.
16. Ibn al ‘Imad al Hanbali in Shadharat al Dhahab.
17. Ibn Taymiyyah.
18. Nazmi Zadah ‘Afandi in Kalsh al Khulafa’.[4]
19. Qutb al Din al Yunini in Dhayl Mir’at al Zaman.

‘Abdullah ibn Fadl al Shirazi, who was a Shia, mentions:

فكتب أهل بغداد على جدرانهم وأبواب المدارس و الأربطة بأقلام مختلفة لعن الله من لا يلعن ابن العلقمي

The people of Baghdad wrote the following on their walls, doors of schools, and signs, in various writings, “May the curse of Allah be on the one who refrains from cursing Ibn al ‘Alqami.”[5]

The above gives the impression that the treachery of Ibn al ‘Alqami was widely known, including among the general public.

Below are some of his own people who have confessed to his treachery:

1. Nur Allah ibn Sharaf al Din al Hussaini al Mar’ashi who is commonly known as al Shushtari mentions:

إنه كاتب هولاكو و الخواجة نصير الدين الطوسي وحرضهما على تسخير بغداد للانتقام من العباسيين

He wrote to Halaku and al Khawajah Nasir al Din al Tusi and spurred them on to exploiting Baghdad as a form of retaliation to the Abbasids.[6]

This reminds us of the indication of al Majlisi to the correspondence between Ibn al ‘Alqami with al Tusi, which in it is an indication to what occurred to the two Alawite individuals or one of them by the Abbasids. He mentions the following:

ويحتمل أن يكون إشارة يقصدق قول أبو جعفر عن العباسيين لا يزال القوم في فسحة من ملكهم ما لم يصيبوا منا دماً حراماً إلى قتل رجل من العلويين قتلوه مقارناً لانقضاء دولتهم كما يظهر مما كتب ابن العلقمي إلى نصير الدين الطوسي

The statement of Abu Jafar regarding the Abbasids where he mentions, “The nation will remain fearless in their territory as long as they do not take the life of one of us unjustly,” is a possible indication to the massacre of an Alawite individual whom they had killed towards the end of their rule as it appears in the correspondence between Ibn al ‘Alqami and Nasir al Din al Tusi.

2.’Ali ibn Anjab al Baghdadi famously known as Ibn al Sa’i (d. 665 AH), who in addition to being a contemporary Shia was also a resident of Baghdad, thereby making his testimony admissible.[7] He mentions:

وفي أيامه أي المستعصم استولت التتار على بغداد وقتلوا الخليفة وبه انقضت الدولة العباسية من أرض العراق وسببه أن وزير الخليفة مؤيد الدين بن العلقمي كان رافضياً…

During the rule of al Mu’tasim, the Tartars invaded Baghdad and massacred the Khalifah which brought the Abbasid rule to an end in the lands of Iraq. This catastrophe was caused by the minister of the Khalifah, Mu’ayyid al Din ibn al ‘Alqami who was a Rafidi.[8]

3.’Abdullah Fadl al Shirazi (d. 730 AH) mentions:

أرسل ابن العلقمي في الخفاء رسولا إلى هولاكو أظهر الإخلاص والطاعة وزين مملكة بغداد في خاطره

Ibn al ‘Alqami secretly sent a messenger to Halaku demonstrating sincerity and obedience to suggest his plan concerning Baghdad.[9]

Agha Burzuk al Tahrani mentions similar in Tabaqat A’lam al Shia and in the discussion concerning Shia works.[10] Al Shirazi had given this book of his to one of the Mongol rulers.

4. We find the following in the recognized book of Bihar al Anwar authored by Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi, discussing the association with Wazir Mu’ayyid al Din ibn al ‘Alqami:

كان هو وزير أبو احمد المستعصم بالله عبد الله بن المستنصر بالله آخر خلفاء بني العباسيين لعنهم الله وكان من خيار الشيعة وأعان هولاكو خان المغول على هلاك الخليفة و أغفل سلطانه المذكور إلى أن قتله سلطان المغول وأزال دولة العباسية فاستوزر نفسه

He was the Wazir of Abu Ahmed al Musta’sim bi Allah ‘Abdullah ibn al Mustansir bi Allah who was the last khalifah of the Abbasid dynasty, may the curse of Allah be on them. He was an admirable Shia who assisted Halaku Khan in massacring the Khalifah. He took advantage of the above-mentioned ruler allowing the Mongol Ruler to kill him and destroy the Abbasid rule, who in return appointed him as minister.[11]

The Kufan preacher, Shams al Din Muhammad ibn ‘Ubaidullah al Hashimi composed a poem lamenting the catastrophe of Baghdad. Some of it is as follows:

يا عصبة الإسلام نوحوا واندبوا            أسفاً على ما حل بالمستعصم

دست الوزا ة كان قبل زمانه           لابن الفرات فصار لابن العلقمي

O Muslims, mourn and wail,

Over what has happened to al Musta’sim.

Prior to his rule, the position of ministership was filled by

Ibn al Furat, but he handed it over to Ibn al ‘Alqami.

The above indicates to the influence of the ministership of Ibn al ‘Alqami concerning what transpired to the Khalifah. Had Ibn al ‘Alqami been the way some have attempted to portray him, having nothing to do with the matter and that it had all happened due to the instigation of al Duwaydar who didn’t actually have any power, al Hashimi would not have blamed him above.

He also composed the following poem regarding this tragedy after witnessing the graves of the Abbasid Khalifah being dug up and burnt:

إن ترد عبرة فتلك العباس       حلت عليهم الآفات

استبيح الحريم إذ قتل الأحياء      منهم وأحرق الأموات

If you desire a lesson then these are the Abbasids,

Upon whom catastrophes descended.

Their sanctum was dishonoured by their living ones being killed,

And their dead ones being burnt.[12]

The incident of burning the graves of the Abbasid Khalifas indicates to the motivating factor being rancour for them. However, this is not found amongst the Mongols but rather only among those who believe that the Abbasids usurped the Caliphate from the Alawites and thereby became disbelievers due to this action.

Some have attempted to raise doubts regarding the treachery of Ibn al ‘Alqami by doubting the Muslim historians whose accusations concerning Ibn al ‘Alqami have been mentioned previously, claiming the absence of contemporary existence or difference in religion.[13]

Concerning the above-mentioned statement of treachery, it is the testimony of a contemporary Shia known as Ibn al Sa’i. Furthermore, he was a resident of Baghdad during the Mongol invasion occupying the librarian position in the al Mustansiriyyah university. He died in 674 AH.

There are also the testimonies of the Shia themselves like that of Nur Allah al Mar’ashi who is commonly known as al Shushtari, ‘Abdullah al Shirazi, and others whose statements have previously appeared.

Ibn Abi Shamah who was a Sunni contemporary to the incident also makes mention of this treachery.[14]

Looking back at the chapter in which we discussed the Shia rulings regarding the blood of the Ahlus Sunnah and working under their rulers, it is not farfetched, as it stems from this belief. The statement of Muhammad Mudarrisi has also been previously mentioned stating that massacre of the Abbasid Khalifah and destroying the Abbasid Caliphate was not a misdeed, but rather a righteous deed by means of which a Shia gains proximity to his lord.[15]

Ibn al ‘Alqami’s appointment as the Wazir of Baghdad by the Mongols also testifies to his treachery, as it is mentioned below by the Mongol historian, al Hamdhani:

وفي نفس اليوم الذي قتلوا فيه الخليفة أرسلوا إلى المدينة مؤيد الدين ابن العلقمي ليقوم بالوزارة

Mu’ayyid al Din ibn al ‘Alqami was appointed as the Wazir of the city by the Mongols the exact day in which the Khalifah was massacred.[16]

Do you know the reason that distinguished al ‘Alqami from al Duwaydar or Sulaiman Basha for instance, as not only were they slain while he was spared, the affairs of the state were handed over to him although he was portrayed as incapable of such matters by his defenders, with him only being second-in-charge to be proof of his weakness according to what the defenders believed.

Furthermore, their appointment of his son ‘Izz al Din Abu al Fadl as governor upon his demise, which occurred a few months after their settling in Baghdad, also indicates to the matter not being due to individual abilities. Do you regard his rank or previous experience to have made him worthy of becoming the governor of Baghdad?[17]

There are a few who have objected, claiming that these are not sufficient evidence to prove his treachery and rather see it to be proof of his sincerity. Among them is al Tiqtaqa who mentions the following:

فأن السلطان لما فتح بغداد وقتل الخليفة سلم البلد إلى الوزير وأحسن إليه وحكَّمه فلو كان قد خامر على الخليفة لما وقع الوثوق به

After conquering Baghdad and massacring the Khalifah, the King treated the Wazir with kindness by handing over the city to him and appointing him as its ruler. Had he defended the Khalifah, the King would not have trusted him.[18]

Jafar Khisbak and Hassan al Amin have mentioned similar and added that Halaku chose him as he was in need of a governor for the city.[19]

A concise reply to the above claim would be that it is not the only evidence present and that the former and latter evidence contradict it.

A detailed response is as follows: Ibn al Tiqtaqa mentioned that had the Wazir been treacherous to the Khalifah, the King would not have deemed him reliable whereas it has been observed that Halaku would appoint as leaders those very individuals who had been treacherous to their leaders. This is exactly what transpired with the Fort of Mardin, the King al Sa’id prepared to fight against the Mongols; however, his son killed him and appointed himself as the leader. He then sought a truce from the Mongols which they awarded and Halaku granted them security. Halaku then handed over the fort to him in which he remained Sultan until the year 695 AH.[20] This individual deceived his own father and killed him which is the greatest form of treachery, yet Halaku overlooked it and handed over authority to him.

Regarding the statement of Jafar Khisbak that is endorsed by Hassan al Amin which claims that Halaku chose the Wazir due to his need for him, if it was as they claim then why did the King appoint his son ‘Izz al Din as his replacement bearing in mind it was only a few months after his demise which means that the city was still in need of strengthening and reinforcement.

What supports the affiliation of Wazir to the Mongols

Their attempt to raise his status among people by making his home a place of sanctuary at the time of the Baghdad’s slaughter, which was prior to the massacre of the Khalifah, indicates that the endeavour in giving him position was predetermined and prior to the massacre of the Khalifah, as mentioned by Ibn al Futi:

و وضع السيف في أهل بغداد يوم الاثنين خامس صفر مازالوا في قتل ونهب و…فلم يبق…إلا القليل ما عدا النصارى … والتجاء إليهم خلق كثير من المسلمين … وكان ببغداد جماعة من التجار …قد تعلقوا من قبل على أمراء المغول وكتب إليهم فرامين  … والتجاء إليهم أيضاً جماعة… وكذلك دار الوزير مؤيد الدين ابن العلقمي فإنه سلم بها خلق كثير ودار صاحب الديوان … ودارحاجب الباب … وما عدا هذه الأماكن فأنه لم يسلم فيه أحد إلا من قن في الأبار والقنوات

The massacre of the general residents of Baghdad began on Monday, 5^th Safar together with the plunder… Other than Christians, very few made it out alive…. Therefore, many Muslims sought refuge from the Christians… There were also many traders present in Baghdad who had relations with Mongol leaders… and had received laissez-passers from them… so a group of Muslims also sought refuge from them… Similar was the residence of Wazir Mu’ayyid al Din ibn al ‘Alqami as many had taken refuge in it together with the residence of the treasurer… and the residence of the doorkeeper… With the exception of those seeking refuge at these locations, none were spared except those who hid in wells and mountaintops.[21]

Al Futi mentions in his work Majma’ al Alqab that Ibn Abi al Hadid was from those who sought refuge in the residence of Wazir Mu’ayyid al Din al ‘Alqami together with his brother Muwaffiq al Din.[22]

Having accomplices in this matter does not exonerate him but rather implicates him together with others.

Reason for this treachery

All those who have accused Ibn al ‘Alqami of treachery have linked it back to his anger at what occurred to the people of his creed, “The Shia’’, amidst the incidents of conflict between the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia which occurred many times in Baghdad during the era of his ministership.

The first conflict occurred in 650 AH.

The second incident occurred in 653 AH between the people of Karkh and Bab al Basarah.[23]

The third incident was in Dhu al Hijjah 654 AH, when the Shia of Karkh killed a man from the Ahlus Sunnah. The Ahlus Sunnah then complained to the Khalifah who ordered that the perpetrators be detained. However, the army then began acting harshly to the Shia which caused them to complain of it to the Khalifah who then ordered that they be left alone and to return to them whatever was usurped or seized from them in an attempt to curb the discord and killing.[24]

As al Tuji mentions in the following:

إن حادثة الكرخ لا شك فيها ويذكرها المؤرخين كافة

There is no doubt in the occurrence of the Karkh incident as it has been documented by adequate historians.[25]

However, in most cases victory was the lot of the Ahlus Sunnah due to them being the majority and the fact that the army and Khalifah was from among them.

All of this made the Wazir furious and hateful of the Khalifah and the state. We have previously discussed the correspondence between him and al Tusi together with the portion which al Majlisi makes mention of and the opinion of Ibn al ‘Alqami stating that the Abbasid dynasty deserves to be destroyed in terms of their actions as they killed some Alawites in these conflicts.[26] This explains the effect the incidents of Karkh had on Ibn al ‘Alqami. Soon we shall present the stance of some Shia who remained in the ranks of Halaku, substantiating the position they had taken from another narration which gives us an indication of the attitude of these people towards Halaku in light of their general beliefs and that which was mentioned previously.

Muhammad al Hasun is among those of the Abbasid dynasty who have mentioned the stance of Ibn al ‘Alqami after the incident of Karkh:

والظاهر أنه كان الكتاب الرا ئج بين الشيعة في بغداد في القرن السابع وذلك واضح من الكتاب الذي كتبه الوزير العلقمي إلى تاج الدين ابن صلايا – وهو شيعي – وفيه فكان جوابي بعد خطابي لابد من الشنيعة بعد قتل جميع الشيعة ومن إحراق كتاب الوسيلة والذريعة

It is no secret that it was an infamous book among the Shia of Baghdad in the seventh century. It can also be proven from the letter written by Wazir al ‘Alqami to Taj al Din Ibn Salaya who was a Shia. A portion of the letter is as follows: My answer after my speech had to be horrible as it was after the killing of all the Shia and burning the books al Wasilah and al Dhari’ah.[27]

Ibn al Wardi includes the entire correspondence between Ibn al ‘Alqami and Ibn al Salaya towards the latter part of al Mukhtasar.[28]

Similarly does al Subki, the following being part of it:

وكتب الوزير إلى نائب الخليفة بإربل وهو تاج الدين محمد بن صلايا وهو أيضاً شيعي رسالة يقول فيها نهب الكرخ المكرم و العترة العلوية وحسن التمثيل بقول الشاعر

أمور تضحك السفهاء منها          ويبكي من عواقبها اللبيب

فلهم أسوة بالحسين حيث نهب حريمه وأريق دمه

أمرتهم أمري بمنعرج اللوى                  فلم يستبينوا الرشد إلا ضحى الغد

وقد عزموا لا أتم الله عزمهم و لا أنفذ أمرهم على نهب الحلة والنيل بل سولت لهم أنفسهم أمر فصبر جميل و الخادم قد أسلف الإنذار وعجل لهم الإعذار

أرى تحت الرماد وميض نار          ويوشك أن يكون له ضرام

وإن لم يطفئها عقلا قومٍ                    يكون وقودها جثث وهام

فقلت من التعجب ليت شعري                   أيقظان أمية أم نيام

فإن يك قومنا أضحوا نياماً                  فقل هبوا لقد حان الحمام

 … فكان جوابي بعد خطابي لابد من الشنيعة بعد قتل الشيعة ومن إحراق كتاب الوسيلة والذريعة فكن لما نقول سميعاً … إلى أن يقول فلأفعلن بلبي كما قال المتنبي:

قوم إذا أخذوا الأقلام من غضب                 ثم استمروا بها ماء المنيات

نالوا بها من أعاديهم وإن بعدوا                       ما لا ينال بحد المشرفيات

و لأتينهم بجنود لا قبل لهم بها ، ولأخرجنهم منها أذلة وهم صاغرون

ووديعة من سر آل محمد                                أودعتها إذا كنت من أمنا ئها

فإذا رأيت الكوكبين تقاربا                     في الجدي عند صباحها ومسائها

فهناك يؤخذ ثأر آل محمد             لطلابها بالترك من أعدائها

فكن لهذا الأمر بالمرصاد وترقب أول النحل وآخر صاد

Al Wazir wrote the following in a letter to the Khalifah’s deputy in Irbil, namely Taj al Din Muhammad ibn Salaya, who was also a Shia:

The blessed Karkh together with the Ahlul Bayt and the Alawites have been ravaged. The following verse of the poet represents the situation:

Matters which cause the foolish to laugh,

While the intelligent cry over its consequences.

Their plight is similar to that of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu when his sanctum was violated and his blood was shed.

I had commanded them not to stop at Mun’arij al Lawa,

But they only listened when it was too late.

They are determined to raid and assume control of Hillah and Nil[29], may Allah cause their plans to seize, for their souls have enticed them to do so, therefore patience is most befitting as Khadim’s previous threats were combatted with excuses in their favour.

I see beneath the ash sparks of fire,

Soon it will come to ablaze.

If the intelligent ones do not distinguish it,

Then the fuel of this fire will be bodies and heads.

I said out of astonishment if only,

Are the Umayyads awake or asleep?

If the time of midday approaches while the people are asleep,

Then say to them: Awaken to your deaths.

… Therefore, my answer after my speech had to be one of disgust due to the killing of the Shia and burning of al Wasilah and al Dhari’ah, so pay attention to what we have to say…

I shall therefore comply in the manner described by al Mutanabbi:

A people who when they draw their pens in anger,

and persist with it into the waters of destiny,

They achieve by it against their enemies even if they be afar,

what they were would have been incapable to achieve even they had been close.

I shall come to them with an army that they will be unable to encounter, and I shall expel them from there in a disgraceful and humiliated manner.

As for the trust which is a secret of the Ahlul Bayt,

I had entrusted it during my custodianship,

When I saw the two stars drawing near,

In the Tropic of Capricorn during the morning and evening,

Vengeance for the Ahlul Bayt is being taken here,

For its seekers with the Mongols from their enemies.

So, remain in observation for this matter, while anticipating the beginning of al Nahl and ending of Sad.[30]

Indicating to the verses, “The command of Allah is coming, so do not be hasty.”[31] and “And you shall certainly see its reality after a while.”[32]

With this being said, the strength and authenticity of the statements which mention the treacherous involvement of Ibn al ‘Alqami has become evident considering that the proofs mentioned above in authenticating the treacherous accusations are all statements of the opposing party. As for the level of its authenticity in our opinion, we find the statements of the large number of Islamic historians, the Shia scholars, those who have been mentioned previously and those who confirm the treacherous involvement of Ibn al ‘Alqami to be sufficient in establishing his treachery, especially taking into consideration that they were involved in this catastrophe and the ones affected. We have read their statements which are filled with grief and sorrow over this great catastrophe, so what can be said to the few that deny all of this either due to ignorance in the matter, conformity in belief, inattention in it being from the people of the book or to what the Mongols have done to their state.

The accusations against al ‘Alqami

We have already discussed the authenticity concerning the occurrence of this treachery together with the correspondences with the Mongols. In this chapter, we will expound on the actual accusations against him.

1.He reduced the army of Baghdad

He has been accused of this by al Subki, Ibn Kathir, al Kutubi in ‘Uyun al Akhbar, al Dhahabi in Duwal al Islam together with many others.[33]

Ibn Kathir mentions:

وجيوش بغداد في غاية القلة ونهاية الذلة لا يبلغون عشرة آلاف فارس هم و بقية الجيوش كلهم قد حرموا إقطاعاتهم حتى استعطى كثير منهم في الأسواق و أبواب المساجد ، وأنشد فيهم الشعراء قصائد يرثون لهم ويحزنون على الإسلام وأهله

The army of Baghdad was meagre and enervated as its soldiers were less than even ten thousand. They were not given stipends which forced many of them to beg in marketplaces and at the doors of the Masajid. The poets even compiled lines of poetry lamenting their plight and mourning Islam and its followers.

Al Subki mentions in al Tabaqat:

وحبب الوزير إلى الخليفة جمع المال والتقليل من العساكر فصار الجند يطلبون من يستخدمهم في حمل القاذورات ومنهم من يكاري على فرسه ، ليصلوا إلى ما يتقوتون به

The Wazir exhorted the Khalifah to hoard wealth and to reduce the army grants which then forced the soldiers to seek work. Some began picking up trash while others hired out their horses just so they could make ends meet.[34]

Al Bakri mentions the following in Tarikh al Khamis:

محا اسم من ذكر من الديوان ثم نفاهم من بغداد ومنعهم من الإقامة بها ثم بعد شهر فعل مثل فعلته الأولى ومحا اسم عشرين ألفاً من الديوان ثم كتب إلى هولاكو بما فعل

He removed the names of those mentioned from the treasury list and banished them from Baghdad. He repeated this action a few months later this time removing twenty thousand names. He then wrote to Halaku informing him of his actions.[35]

In this way, he was able to demobilize the army in a quick and effective manner. The statement of Ibn al Futi who was the student of Khawajah al Tusi and a contemporary to the incident assists us in determining the time in which the demobilization of the army took place. He mentions the following statement under the incidents of 655 AH:

وكان الخليفة قد أهمل حال الجند ومنعهم أرزقهم وأسقط أكثرهم من دساتير ديوان العرض. فآلت أحوالهم إلى سؤال الناس وبذل وجوههم في الطلب في الأسواق و الجوامع ونظم الشعراء في ذلك الأشعار

The Khalifah neglected the army by putting an end to their stipends and removing most of them from the registries of the treasury. This forced them to stretch their hands to people and they began begging in the marketplaces and Masajid. Poets have even composed poetry in this regard.[36]

The following description of the army mentioned by Ibn Tabataba al Shia when al Duwaydar came out to meet the Mongol army also indicates to its feeble amount:

وكان عسكراً في غاية القلة

The army was absolutely tiny.[37]

The statement of Ibn al Futi clearly indicates that the immobilization of the army took place in 655 AH. What also backs this up is that Halaku prior to this reprimanded Baiju Nuyan, a Mongol commander by saying:

إنك لم تفعل شيئاً سوى أنك رحت تخوف القوات المغولية بالمبالغة في غلبة الخليفة من قوة وعظمة

You have done nothing but frighten the army by exaggerating the dominance and power of the Khalifah.

Baiju replied saying:

إنني لم أقصر… وقد أخضعت …ماعدا بغداد فإنه بسبب كثر سكانها ووفرة جيوشها وبسبب كثرة ما فيها من الأسلحة ومزيد الأهبة وبسبب الطرق الضيقة الصعبة…

I haven’t become slack… and I have obeyed… It is just that Baghdad has a lot of inhabitants, a huge army, abundance of weaponry, plentiful preparations, and difficult narrow paths…

The Mongol historian al Hamdhani mentions that this was done in Rabi’ al Awwal 655 AH i.e., towards the beginning of the year.[38] The victory of the Baghdad army against one of the Mongol armies in 643 AH also confirms their prior strength.[39]

Al Hamdhani also mentions the following regarding Halaku:

كان يفكر في كثرة جند بغداد

He was concerned regarding the size of the Baghdad army.[40]

In that case, the Baghdad army must have been really powerful for Halaku to be concerned about it, Baiju to fear it, and the Mongol army to flee from it. So, why did the Khalifah neglect it? And why did he attempt to hoard the wealth stipulated for the army?

Ibn Taghribirdi mentions:

أن ابن العلقمي أﺷار على المستعصم بقطع أرزاق الجند ومصانعة التتار وإكرامهم يحصل بذلك المقصود ولا حاجة لكثرة الجند ففعل ذلك الخليفة

Ibn al ‘Alqami advised al Mu’tasim to put an end to the army stipends, to cooperate with the Tartars and respect them in an attempt to achieve the objective, and that there was no need for a huge army; and the Khalifah took his advice.[41]

With regards to the Wazir being the one who initiated peace with the Tartars, putting an end to their bloodshed and giving them a lot of wealth, it is a widely accepted fact—not only among those who accuse him but also among those who defend him—therefore the only logical explanation would be that it was none other than Ibn al ‘Alqami who convinced the Khalifah to carry out these acts.

It is only Allah who is fully aware of the full reality but Ibn al Futi who was close to this incident mentioned before describing the feeble state of the army that had been sent that the Wazir advised the Khalifah with the following:

ببذل الأموال وحملها إليه هولاكو مع التحف الكثيرة و الأ شياء الغريبة و الأعلاق النفيسة

To hand over all the wealth to Halaku including many gems, rare, and precious items.[42]

This also indicates to the fact that it was Ibn al ‘Alqami who caused the feeble condition of the army. And Allah knows best.

The following incident also raises doubts regarding Ibn al ‘Alqami:

ولما تحققت أمنية حسان الدين حاكم درتنك التي طالما تمناها وتجمعت عنده جنود سليمان شاه تعاظم وتكبر وأرسل ابن صلايا العلوي الشيعي الذي راسله ابن العلقمي بعد حادثة الكرخ إلى هكذا حاكم إربل ليصلحه مع ديون الخليفة و قال لقد قدرتُ هولاكو خان وما هو عليه من كفاءة وكياسة ومهما يكن له من العنف والتهديد فليس له عندي وزن فلو طيب الخليفة خاطري وطمأن قلبي وبعث إلى بجند من الفرسان لجمعت أنا أيضاً ما يقرب من مائة ألف من فرق المشاة من كرد و تركمان ولسددت الطرق في وجه هولاكو خان لا أدع أي مخلوق من جنده يدخل بغداد فعرف ابن صلايا الوزير بذلك فعرضه هذا بدوره على الخليفة فلم يبدي اهتماماً كثيراً ولما بلغ هولاكو خان هذا الكلام ثارت ثورة غضبه … ثم قتله المغول مع كافة أتباعه

When the long hoped for goal of the Turk ruler Hassam al Din was achieved, and the armies of Sulaiman Shah gathered around him, he became proud and haughty and sent Ibn Salaya al ‘Alawi—the same Shia who was used by Ibn al ‘Alqami to send messages after the incident of Karkh—to the ruler of Irbil to make peace and to settle the debts of the Khalifah. His message was as follows, “I have assessed Halaku Khan and I have found him to be inefficient and uncivilized. No matter how brutal or intimidating he may be, it holds no weight in my eyes. Had the Khalifah soothed me, put my heart at rest and sent an army of cavalry to me, I would have also gathered an army of one hundred thousand infantry troops of Kurds and Turks, and I would have blocked off every path in the way of Halaku Khan not allowing any creature of his army entrance into Baghdad.’’ Ibn Salaya informed Wazir who in return informed the Khalifah; however, the Khalifah didn’t pay much attention to it. When this statement reached the ears of Halaku Khan, he became extremely furious… The Mongols later killed him together with a considerable number of his followers.[43]

The Khalifah showing no concern to the report is strange unless we believe that he had already taken the advice of Ibn al ‘Alqami which was not preparing for an altercation and that handing over the wealth was going to be sufficient. Possibly, this is what the Khalifah indicated to when looking at the letter of Hassam al Din as Ibn al ‘Alqami did not notice any change in his stance. Indeed, he handed over the wealth and surrendered to the Mongols which reminds us of the stance taken by Nasir al Din al Tusi with the Ismailiyyah when he persuaded Rukn al Din Khurshah to surrender, which he did and that got him killed by Halaku, while Nasir al Din remained safe. One can wonder at the extent Halaku’s spies had infiltrated the palace of the Khalifah as he was promptly apprised concerning the treachery of Hassam al Din ‘Ukkah.

Some of those who defend al ‘Alqami claim that he had given the best advice to the Khalifah and guided him to the correct path which was to hand over the wealth and surrender to Halaku as it was the only way to protect himself and the Caliphate.

However, the inauthenticity of this opinion can be seen by glancing at Mongol history, added to the fact that they cannot be trusted. Their habit was to shed the blood of every person who poses a threat or just being eligible as one, although they may have not made a single advance against them.

I present to you the following historical evidences:

1. The massacre of the Ismaili ruler even after he had given them security and surrendered. Halaku kept him alive until he took over all the forts and then killed him.[44]

2. Ibn Salaya al ‘Alawi, the deputy of the Khalifah in Irbil.

Ibn al Futi mentions:

وكان قد قصد حضرة السلطان بعد وقعة بغداد ليقر رجاله فأمر بقتله

He planned on visiting the ruler after the incident of Baghdad to safeguard his men, but Halaku commanded that he be killed.[45]

Muhaqqiq Bashshar ‘Awwad and ‘Imad ‘Abdul Salam include the following statement of al Dhahabi under the footnotes of this incident:

فيقال إن لؤلو – صاحب الموصل – قال لهولاكو : هذا شريف علوي ونفسه تحدثه بالخلافة ولو قام تبعه الناس واستفحل أمره ؛ فقتله هولاكو

It is mentioned that Lu’lu’ the ruler of Mosul said to Halaku, “This is a noble ‘Alawi person who is desirous of Caliphate. If he stands up, people will join him and matters will become worse. So Halaku got him killed.’’

Look over the conciliation of Ibn Salaya and his attempt to hand over the stronghold to them without altercation or resistance.[46]

3.The inhabitants of the Harim stronghold.

Al Hamdhani mentions:

ثم شغلوا مدة بمحاصرة قلعة حارم وأخيراً طلب أهلها الأمان لكنهم اشترطوا أن يقسم لهم فخر الدين المعروف بالساقي على الأمان لكي ينزلوا ، ثم سلَّموا بناءً على عهده وإيمانه . فكان أن غضب عليهم هولاكو غضباً شديداً ، وأمر بأن يقتلوا دفعة وحدة مع نسائهم وأطفالهم ولم ينج منهم إلا صائغ أرمني

They laid siege to the Harim fort for a while but in the end its inhabitants asked for peace and decided to exit with the condition that Fakhr al Din who was known as al Saqi takes an oath of protection. They then surrendered based on his trust and belief. However, Halaku became furious at them and commanded that they be killed at once together with their women and children. The only person who survived was an Armenian jeweller.[47]

That is why the logical demanded that they not be trusted and for this reason, many rulers of Islamic regions refused to initiate peace with them due to their knowledge of their treachery. Some of them were:

1. Malik Sa’id, ruler of Mardin

The Mongol general who was sent to Malik Sa’id said to him:

أهبط من القلعة وقدم الطاعة والولاء لملك العالم ليبقى لك رأسك ومالك ونسائك وأبناؤك

Descend from the fort and surrender to the king of the world so that your life, wealth, women, and children may be spared.

Malik Sa’id replied with the following:

كنت قد عزمت على السمع والطاعة والحضور إلى الملك ، ولكن حيث إنكم قد عاهدتم الآخرين ثم قتلتموهم بعد أن اطمأنوا إلى عهدكم و أمانكم فإني لا أثق بكم

I would have surrendered by obeying and coming in front of the king, but I no longer trust you since you went back on your promises to others by taking their lives the minute they accepted your promises.[48]

2. Malik Kamil

Al Hamdhani mentions:

ولما بلغوا حدود ميافارقين أرسلوا رسولاً إلى الملك الكامل ودعوه إلى الطاعة و الخضوع فأجاب الملك الكامل : ينبغي ألا يضرب الأمير في حديد بارد ….. إذ كيف أثق بابن رجل نكث العهود الميثاق مع خورشاه و الخليفة وحسام الدين عكه وتاج الدين أربل وقد جاء الملك الناصر الدين خصيصا بأمانكم فرأى في نهاية الأمر ما رآى وسوف أرى أنا أيضا ما سبق أن رأوه

Upon reaching the borders of Silvan, they sent a messenger to Malik Kamil asking him to surrender to their rule. Malik Kamil replied saying, “A ruler should not be slain without fighting… How do I trust the son of a man who has broken pacts with Khurshah, the Khalifah, Hassam al Din ‘Ukkah, and Taj al Din Irbil, not forgetting Malik Nasir al Din who particularly initiated peace but still ended up being deceived in the end. I shall soon witness what has already been witnessed by them.[49]

3. Sultan Qutuz

Prior to Halaku’s return from Syria to his homeland which was due to the death of the biggest leader, he sent a letter to the ruler of Egypt threatening him and commanding him to surrender. Sultan Qutuz upon receiving the letter consulted with his men. In that gathering, Nasir al Din Qimri said the following regarding Halaku:

إنه ليس بالإنسان الذي يطمأن إليه ، فهو لا يتورع عن احتزاز الرؤوس وهو لا يفي بعهده وميثاقه ، فإنه قتل فجأة خورشاه والخليفة وحسام الدين عكه وصاحب إربل بعد أن أعطاهم العهد و الميثاق فإذا ما سرنا إليه فسيكون مصيرنا هذا السبيل

He is not someone who can be trusted as he does not hesitate in killing nor does he keep his word. He suddenly took the lives of Khurshah, the Khalifah, Hassam al Din ‘Ukkah, and the governor of Irbil even after giving them his word. If we surrender to him, our fate will be similar to theirs.

Towards the latter part of the meeting, they unanimously agreed to go to war. Allah’s assistance was on their side in this battle, which is referred to as ‘Ayn Jalut and the Mongol invasion came to a halt. So, this was the correct stance to be adopted against the Mongols and not that which was advised by Ibn al ‘Alqami which made the Khalifah hold back the army’s grants and collect it to hand it over to the Mongols.[50]

The Shia contemporary, Hassan al Amin, in his following statement agrees that the Mongols are a treacherous nation:

ولكن الذي يطالب بمثل هذا ينسى أن المغول امتهنوا الشرائع وغدروا بالرسل وخانوا المستأمنين ونقضوا العهود

However, those who are calling for the return of this are forgetting that the Mongols reviled the Shari’ah, acted treacherously towards messengers, betrayed those who were granted protection, and went against their word.[51]

How can it be said that Ibn al ‘Alqami advised and guided the Khalifah to the extent that Hassan al Amin himself mentions the following:

وبعد فوات الأوان يدرك المستعصم أن ما قد أشار به ابن العلقمي كان هو الصواب، وأنه لو عمل بآرائه لما وصل الحال إلى ما وصل إليه

In hindsight, al Musta’sim knew that the advice of Ibn al ‘Alqami was the correct advice to take, and the situation would not have reached this point had he followed accordingly.[52]

This is nothing but contradiction and arbitrary.

2. He tricked the Khalifah into coming out to Halaku with the seniors of the state so he could assassinate them

Al Yunini is among those who makes mentions of this in the following words:

فحينئذ أشار ابن العلقمي الوزير على الخليفة بمصانعة ملك التتر و مصالحته وسأله أن يخرج إليه في تقرير ذلك فخرج وتوثق منه لنفسه ثم رجع إلى الخليفة وقال له : إنه رغب أن يزوج ابنته من ابنك الأمير أبى بكر ويبقيك في منصب الخلافة كما أبقى سلطان الروم …. ويمكن بعد ذلك أن تفعل ما تريد وحسن له الخروج إليه في جمع من أكابر أصحابه فأنزل في خيمة ثم دخل الوزير فاستدعى الفقهاء والأماثل ليحضروا عقد النكاح فيما أظهره فقتلوا وكذلك صار يخرج طائفة بعد طائفة

At this point the Wazir, Ibn al ‘Alqami, advised the Khalifah to initiate peace with the King of the Tartars and requested to play an active role in it. He set out confident in himself and soon returned to the Khalifah saying, “The King plans on getting his daughter married to the son of the Amir, Abu Bakr, thus keeping you as the Khalifah just as he kept the ruler of Rome. It is possible that you would then be able to do what you please.” The Khalifah happily set out taking a group of his senior associates and entered his tent. The Wazir then came after inviting the Jurists and their likenesses to attend what seemed to be a marriage ceremony, but turned out to be the place where their blood was shed. Similarly, group after group were made to come out.[53]

The very accusation is mentioned in Tabaqat al Shafi’iyyah of al Subki and in Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah but excludes mention of the marriage.[54]

We find the following by taking a look at the books which are considered unbiased and contemporary like Jami’ al Tawarikh of al Hamdhani as he had written the Mongol documents from the beginning which was given to him and due to him occupying an important position in their state. Similarly, Jami’ al Hawadith of Ibn al Futi as he was a contemporary to these incidents, he was present in Baghdad and he was the student of al Tusi himself, as well as other books.

Al Hamdhani mentions that the Khalifah sought the advice of Wazir prior to going before Halaku and that he was accompanied by three thousand of the state’s leaders, judges and seniors.[55]

Ibn al Futi mentions:

خرج الوزير …. إلى خدمه السلطان فى جماعه من مماليكه وأتباعه وكانوا ينهون الناس عن الرمي بالنشاب ويقولون سوف يقع الصلح إن شاء الله فلا تحاربوا هذا وعساكر المغول يبالغون في الرمي… وعاد الوزير … يوم الأحد وكان قد خرج الخميس سابع عشرين من المحرم وقال للخليفة قد تقدم السلطان أن نخرج إليه فأخرج ولده الأ وسط … فلم يقع الاقتناع به فخرج الخليفة والوزير … ومعه جمع كثير

Wazir entered into the service of the king together with a group of his slaves and followers. They were preventing people from shooting arrows and were saying, “Allah willing, peace will be made soon, so do not fight,’’ whereas the Mongol army continued to rain arrows. The Wazir returned on Sunday 27^th Muharram, while he left on Thursday, and said to the Khalifah, “The king has ordered that we go before him.” However, the Khalifah’s middle son excluded himself as he did not trust him. The Khalifah and the Wazir then set out together with a great number of people.[56]

Ibn al Futi has also mentioned the portion discussing how they removed the jurists and killed them in his book Talkhis Majma’ al Adab[57] and he narrates the following from ‘Abdullah al Tahrani al Razi al Hanafi:

وهو ممن كان يخرج الفقهاء الى باب السور إلى مخيم السلطان هولاكو مع شهاب الدين الزنجاني ليقتلوا

He was among those called the Jurists out to Bab Sur to the camp of King Halaku together with Shihab al Din al Zinjani so they could be killed.

The above informs us that the calling of the Jurists and scholars out and their massacre is an established fact and that it was Ibn al ‘Alqami who called the Khalifah out with three thousand others. Ibn al Futi did not mention here that al Tahrani and al Zinjani were the only ones who did this, rather he mentioned “he was among those” indicating that there were others.

If someone were to object that these individuals were regarded as Ahlus Sunnah, we accept it; however, was the fate of those Ahlus Sunnah who assisted the Mongols one of dignity—as the Shia award al Tusi and al ‘Alqami—or was is that of disgrace.[58]

In Aleppo, some youngsters together with others were put to death by the leader due to their affiliation to the Mongols.[59]

It is commonly known even among the defenders of Ibn al ‘Aqami that the going out of the Khalifah was with his reassurance of the agreement with Halaku. However, I do not see a reason why three thousand other individuals had to also go out to initiate the peace treaty except it being a way of achieving their objective, which has been mentioned by the remaining historians.

As you can see, there isn’t any objection and it is actually best that they did not mention the promise and agreement which occurred between Halaku and Wazir wherein the Khalifah comes out with three thousand of the state’s notables. The Ahlus Sunnah historians, however, mention it and it is a reasonable reason for the coming out of such a group. Allah knows best.

After shedding light on the stance of these two individuals, we will discuss the stance of the remaining Shia scholars, so that a clearer picture may be obtained.

NEXT⇒ Chapter Five – The stance of the remaining Shia scholars

[1] Al Dhayl ‘ala al Rawdatayn, pg. 199.

[2] Tabaqat al Shafi’iyyah, 8/263.

[3] Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 13/225.

[4] Muhakkamah al Tarikh, pg. 29.

[5] Wassaf al Hadarah, pg. 151.

[6] Majalis al Mu’minin, pg. 400; Muhakkamah al Tarikh, pg. 29.

[7] His biography is mentioned in A’yan al Shia, 1/305.

[8] Mukhtasar Akhbar al Khulafa’, pg. 136-137; Mas’alah al Taqrib bayn al Sunnah wa al Shia, 2/263.

[9] Tarikh Wassaf al Hadarah, 1/37-38; Muhakkamah al Tarikh, pg. 25.

[10] Tabaqat A’lam al Shia, 3/123,358.

[11] Bihar al Anwar, footnote 1, 104/31, second revised edition, Mu’assat al Wafa’, Beirut, 1403-1983.

[12] Al Hawadith al Jami’ah, pg. 364.

[13] A’yan al Shia, 9/100.

[14] Dhayl al Rawdatayn, pg. 656.

[15] ‘Allamah al Khawajah Nasir al Din al Tusi, pg. 69.

[16] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 295.

[17] Al Hawadith al Jami’ah, pg. 362; A’yan al Shia, 9/87; Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 297; Tara’if al Maqal, 1/105.

[18] Al Fakhri, pg. 313.

[19] Al Ghazw al Maghuli, pg. 105; A’yan al Shia, 9/101.

[20] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg.325.

[21] Al Hawadith al Jami’ah, pg. 359.

[22] Muqaddamah Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, 1/18.

[23] Al Hawadith al Jami’ah, pg. 320.

[24] Jami’ al Hawadith, pg. 331.

[25] Bilad al Sham, pg. 120.

[26] Bihar al Anwar, 64/341.

[27] Muqaddamah Kitab al Wasilah, pg. 8.

[28] Al Mukhtasar, pg. 88.

[29] A village on the outskirts of Kufah.

[30] Al Tabaqat al Kubra al Shafi’iyyah, 8/263.

[31] Surah al Nahl: 1.

[32] Sura Sad: 88.

[33] Al Tabaqat, 8/262, al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 13/214.

[34] Al Tabaqat, 8/262.

[35] Muhakkamah al Tarikh, pg. 35.

[36] Al Hawadith al Jami’ah, pg. 350.

[37] Al Fakhri, pg. 311.

[38] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 260.

[39] Al Ghazw al Maghuli, pg. 86; Al Hawadith al Jami’ah, pg. 240.

[40] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 277.

[41] Al Nujum al Zahirah, 7/48.

[42] Al Hawadith al Jami’ah, pg. 349.

[43] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 267.

[44] Al Ghazw al Maghuli, pg. 18; Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 257.

[45] Al Hawadith al Jami’ah, pg. 366.

[46] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 298.

[47] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 307.

[48] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 324.

[49] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 319.

[50] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 310.

[51] Al Ghazw al Maghuli, pg. 150.

[52] Muhakkamah al Tarikh.

[53] Dhayl Mir’at al Zaman, 1/88.

[54] Tabaqat al Shafi’iyyah, 8/270; Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 13/214.

[55] Jami’ al Tawarikh, pg. 290.

[56] Al Hawadith al Jami’ah, pg. 356.

[57] Talkhis Majma’ al Adab, 2/195; Footnote 4 of Al Hawadith al Jami’ah, pg. 396; A’yan al Shia, 9/85.

[58] Consequently, the author of al Hawadith al Jami’ah (pg. 396) includes in the footnote of the above statement that He was afflicted with a disease that caused him great difficulty right until his death. It seems that some of his punishment was metered out to him in this worldly life. Allah knows best.

[59] Bilad al Sham Abam al Ghazw al Maghuli, pg. 154.