Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Ali-F

The Mongols Attack On Baghdad In 1257

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

What is the reason that only nasir ud din tusi was blamed for this evil conduct? Why not other shia scholars like Al Hilli or Al Bahrani?

 

 

Because Nasr al-din Tusi, may God grant him his mercy, being in the right place and the right time, is a convenient way for Sunnis to pass the blame for everything bad that happens to them on Shi'a conspirators because Sunnis have a huge problem it seems with taking responsibility for themselves so any problem must therefore be either the result of Shi'a or Jews. The Mongols were ruthless, far more powerful than the Muslim armies and anyone who stood against them in the slightest was mercilessly slaughtered , their homes burned, their women taken and their lands salted so nothing would grow. The Abbasid caliphate at the time was incredibly weak and was either unwilling or incapable of defending the frontier against the Mongol invaders, which resulted in the deaths of many Sunnis and Shi'a. Why is Nasr al-Din Tusi blamed and not those Sunni rulers who chose to submit to the Mongols rather than be killed, thus allowing the Mongols to reach Baghdad? If all it took for Baghdad caliphate to fall was one philosopher saying the astrological predictions of one Sunni were a load of horse raddish, then that is probably one of the most pathetic dynasties to ever exist.

 

 

The mongols spared no one. How come the assassins ignore Tusi? Traitors have NO respect at all, especially in eyes of those whom the traitor works for. Once the work is finished they have no use for them.

 

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

 

 

 

The truth is that shias have never missed the chance to sit back & enjoy watching massacre of sunnis.

 

Whatever you say, bro. Nasr al Din Tusi's hate for Sunnis must have been so great that he helped the Mongols destroy the shrine of the Shi'ite imams and massacre the Shi'a inhabitants of Baghdad, huh?

 

 

 

Wasn't Taqiyyah a good option? Millions of lives were at stake.

 

Taqiyyah doesn't mean straight lying. In fact, it is better to die affirming the truth then it is to tell a lie against God. Nasr al-Din Tusi was asked by the Khan if the bad omens foretold by his other adviser were correct and if he'd experience any evil in this world as a result of his attacking the caliph. Nasr al-Din Tusi said no and pointed out that the caliphs themselves had killed each other in order to obtain their positions yet experienced no immediate consequences for their behavior. And as a scientist and astronomer, he could not confirm in good honesty the unprovable astrological predictions. If Nasr al-Din Tusi had lied, he would be uttering a lie against God himself, proclaiming that God had somehow favored the caliphate of the Abbasids that anyone who attacked them would meet doom, when history proved this was not the case.

 

Also, the assumption that his lying would have saved millions of lives hinges on the other assumption that it was Nasr al-Din Tusi's opinion that prompted the Khan's siege, when the behavior of the Khan had demonstrated that he was perfectly willing to siege Baghdad regardless of Nasr al-Din Tusi's statements. The Khan was not convinced that he would suffer any calamity upon entering Baghdad and the attempts to convince him by others did nothing. He then brought Nasr al-Din Tusi and Tusi knowing he was being tested and that the Khan planned on attacking Baghdad regardless of what he said, simply told the truth. There was also no way al-Din Tusi would have been able to defend baseless and false claims that great evil omens would occur if Hulagu Khan attacked Baghdad. Lying in this situation would be pointless because it would not stop the Khan from doing what he intended to do and it would have been a blasphemy to God since it would be to suggest that the Abbasids had special favor with God, when they had no such thing. The Khan also knew that he was being lied to from the start and was never convinced or close to being convinced of Husim al-Din's prediction since Husim al-Din could not prove it. Nasr al-Din Tusi was brought in in the hopes that he could prove something that itself could not be proven, but rather than try in vain to prove a clear lie, Nasr al-Din Tusi simply told the truth.

 

Hulagu Khan had decided to attack Baghdad because he was convinced by his advisers that it was expediant and profitable, not because Nasr al-Din Tusi convinced him to do it. Nasr al-Din Tusi had nothing to do with the Khan's decision and the responsibility for the events of the siege and martyrdom of those in Baghdad rest squarely on the Khan, not a man forced into a situation where he had to account for the sayings of an astrologer with his own life and the honor of God at stake. al-Din Tusi even put his own life at risk to save some of Baghdad's notables from the wrath of the Khan.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One cannot forget that he collaborated with the Mongols as a result of which more than 2 million muslims were butchered. 

 

Regarding his alleged deflection to the Mongols, Badakhchani writes:

 

"There are some diverse and sometimes contradictory reports which, for a number of reasons, cannot be relied upon, and it is unlikely we will ever reach a firm conclusion regarding his conduct. Whatever Tusi's motivations, it is possible to surmise that he chose to ensure his survival by distancing himself from the Ismailis and offering his services to the conquering Mongols. This course of action not only permitted him to continue his scholarship under Mongol patronage at the Maragha observatory constructed especially for him in Azerbaijan, but also enabled him to dissuade the invaders from a total annihilation of the Iranian cultural heritage."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding his alleged deflection to the Mongols, Badakhchani writes:

 

"There are some diverse and sometimes contradictory reports which, for a number of reasons, cannot be relied upon, and it is unlikely we will ever reach a firm conclusion regarding his conduct. Whatever Tusi's motivations, it is possible to surmise that he chose to ensure his survival by distancing himself from the Ismailis and offering his services to the conquering Mongols. This course of action not only permitted him to continue his scholarship under Mongol patronage at the Maragha observatory constructed especially for him in Azerbaijan, but also enabled him to dissuade the invaders from a total annihilation of the Iranian cultural heritage."

 

Nasr al-Din Tusi's honesty also earned him favor with the Mongols and allowed him to obtain the endowments to provide for those who were affected by the conquests.

 

When Hulagu Khan brought Nasr al-Din Tusi, the Khan was testing Tusi precisely because he suspected that the predictions of Husim al-Din were false and based purely out of loyalty to the caliph. Nasr al-Din Tusi merely offered the impartial truth and eventually earned the respect of the Mongols for his honesty.

 

http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol8-n2/alleged-role-khawajah-nasir-al-din-al-tusi-fall-baghdad/alleged-role-khawajah#effects-khawajahs-presence-among-mongols

 

 

While the Mongol invasions progressed, the Khawajah might have thought that if one delays co-operation with the new rulers, it would mean letting them carry on with their destruction. Since they showed respect, albeit nominal, toward scholars, why shouldn't he take the opportunity and try to save Islam and Muslims? And once the Islamic culture is rescued from ruination by the barbarian hordes, perhaps the conversion of some of them would make them into propagators of knowledge, thought, and religion.

 

The Khawajah must have thought that the only way to protect Islam and Muslims and the religious culture of the society was to associate himself with the Mongol khan. He set out to do so and became Hulagu's associate.

 

The foregoing is not a mere claim, for history has confirmed the Khawajah's farsighted judgment. It has also proved that the Khawajah and others like him from among Shi'i and Sunni `ulama' could accomplish this task fruitfully. However, the caliph, who lacked their wisdom and farsightedness paid no attention to them.66

 

It will be seen sub-sequently herein that Ibn al-`Alqami, the last minister of the `Abbasid caliph too had offered a similar suggestion, but others, like the `Dawatdar', with their eagerness to remain in their posts, eventually threw all into the abyss of death, drowning Baghdad in blood.

However, the Khawajah and others like him did not have so much influence in the beginning as to control Hulagu's decision. In course of time, however, Hulagu did come under such influence in political matters. After him, many Mongol khans embraced Islam and, as rulers, strived for the expansion of Islamic justice and culture - at least to an extent greater than the Umayyads and the `Abbasids whose fall is lamented by Ibn Taymiyyah.

 

This does not mean, of course, that we should not recognize the worthy efforts of those who resisted the Mongols and bravely fought them to the extent of becoming martyrs. However, a scholar's grasp of the realities of his world and his exercise of wisdom and farsightedness in acquiring influence among the Mongols are not things that sound reason would regard as unacceptable.

 

http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol8-n2/alleged-role-khawajah-nasir-al-din-al-tusi-fall-baghdad/alleged-role-khawajah#khawajahs-influence-over-hulagu

 

 

As stated earlier, the Khawajah had not acquired any considerable influence over Hulagu in the beginning; this fact has been noted by some researchers.67 For when the Mongols attacked Baghdad, both the Shi`is and the Sunnis were equally adversely affected.68

 

Dr. Shaybi has also remarked that the common fate of the Shi`is and the Sunnis in the sack of Baghdad refutes any charges of a prior arrangement.69 It is notable that the shrine of al-'Imam Musa al-Kadim (A) was also burnt down.70

 

However, gradually over a length of time, the Khawajah won the favor of the Mongol khan who assigned him several duties, including the supervision of the awqaf (endowments).71

 

Furthermore, administration of the affairs of the city of Tus were also entrusted to him.72 For a time he was appointed as yarguchi (prosecutor) at the sole court of the Mongol regime.73 During the siege of Baghdad, the Khawajah was once sent by Hulagu as an emissary to the caliph.74 Later, he became responsible for the construction of an observatory for Hidagu.75

 

Finally, the Khawajah's influence became so much that, according to Ibn Shakir: “Khawajah Nasir held an exalted position and was held in; high esteem by Hulagu, inasmuch as whatever he asked of the latter was carried out and the requisite expenditure was provided.”76 The Khawajah was a trustworthy man and, as such, was naturally relied upon to a great extent by Hulagu Khan.

 

Shams al-Din ibn Mu'ayyad al-'Ardi says: “The Khawajah carried out the work of the ministry for Hulagu without any embezzlement. He dominated the mind of

Hulagu to such an extent that the latter would never ride a horse or go on a journey without his approval.”77

 

Among the most important tasks he took up were those which pertained to libraries, revival of Islamic sciences, and training of scholars, in which he accomplished his purpose to an extent unexpected by the side of the destruction brought about by the Mongols and amazing for the period of their supremacy.

 

He collected and set up a library of four hundred thousand books, out of the destroyed libraries of Baghdad, Syria, al-Jazirah and elsewhere.78

While he administered the awqaf properties, he spent a tenth of the income to cover the cost of construction of an observatory and the expenses of the scholars working there. Moreover, the benefits of the income reached all Muslims, especially the `Alawids and Shi`is.79

 

The caliph refused to accept surrender so as to spare the people of Baghdad harm in spite of the urgent pleas of al-Din Tusi and others among his entourage. Everybody by that time knew what the Mongols were capable of and had accepted that the Mongols were the new rulers and any resistance would be met with the harshest of reactions. The caliph's arrogance and the Mongols' savagery are to blame for the events of Baghdad, not the Khawajah (may God shower him with his mercy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is the reason that only nasir ud din tusi was blamed for this evil conduct? Why not other shia scholars like Al Hilli or Al Bahrani? 

 

 

The mongols spared no one. How come the assassins ignore Tusi? Traitors have NO respect at all, especially in eyes of those whom the traitor works for. Once the work is finished they have no use for them.

 

 

The truth is that shias have never missed the chance to sit back & enjoy watching massacre of sunnis.Take the example of Mir Jafar & Mir Sadiq selling themselves to the Britishers in the sub continent OR Ayatollah Muhsini supporting the American Invasion by fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan.  

 

 

 
Wasn't Taqiyyah a good option? Millions of lives were at stake.

 

When you bring someone like Mir Jafar up, I'm going to say that you're deliberately being selective. Let me tell you what really happened.

Mir Jafar was the commander of Bengal's Army, one of the highest ranking nobles in the Shia court of Bengal, and the uncle of Bengal's last sovereign Nawab.

The Province of Bengal was ruled by Shia Nawabs/Princes of Iranian origin. The last of these great Princes was Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula. Siraj not only represented Shia might in the region, but also the remnants of Muslim power in Bengal. He was the grandson of Alivardi Khan and a devout Shia muslim.

 

Siraj was 17 when he faced the British at the Battle of Plassey. Mir Jafar's lack of morality was known to the young Nawab. He had begged his uncle Mir Jafar to not betray him when they would face the British. Mir Jafar ensured his nephew that he was loyal to the Princedom of Bengal. When the battle begun however, Mir Jafar--drunk on British coin--ordered his troops to start attacking Siraj's soldiers. Before Siraj knew it, he was already defeated. Fearing for the young Prince's life, the Nawab's advisers arranged for his escape. Siraj fled along with his young wife, Lutfun Nisa. However, Mir Jafar, in collaboration with Robert Clive, hunted him down and had him executed.

 

If you think Mir Jafar represents the "Shi'ite tendency to betray" muslims, then what are we to make of Siraj-ud-Daula? To this day, in Deobandi Sunni Bangladesh, Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula--a devout practicing Shi'ite--is hailed as one of the greatest heroes of the nation, as well as one of the last voices against colonialism. The thousands of plays and dramas every year during Ramadan display the great love the people have for him.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think Mir Jafar represents the "Shi'ite tendency to betray" muslims, then what are we to make of Siraj-ud-Daula? To this day, in Deobandi Sunni Bangladesh, Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula--a devout practicing Shi'ite--is hailed as one of the greatest heroes of the nation, as well as one of the last voices against colonialism. 

 

Shia kings mostly of Iranian origin ruled in many important parts of India

 

Big states

 

Bengal

Mysore

Oudh

 

Small states 

 

Ahmadnagar

Bidar

Bijapur

Berar 

Golconda

 

All destroyed by the British

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shia kings mostly of Iranian origin ruled in many important parts of India

 

Big states

 

Bengal

Mysore

Oudh

 

Small states 

 

Ahmadnagar

Bidar

Bijapur

Berar 

Golconda

 

All destroyed by the British

In the process of defending their Princedoms, that is. Many sunnis try to ignore their stance against the British for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this logic by a couple of people here...

The Abbasid Caliph oppressed Shias, so we support the Mongols invading Muslim lands and killing millions of Muslims (likely including Shias)....

 

i mean honestly what do you guys do during Muharram?  Do you pay any attention?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Ref post 12, alirex

 

As I remember, the Mongols occupied what is now Lebanon, but not Israel. Was this later or is the map in error?

I checked around 10-15 images and almost all site have that kind of maps. I don't know what is truth as i am not interested in Mongolian history .. i hate them bcoz they burned our books which can help solving issues in between Muslim sects. Rest God knows best ... he is master planner.

 

 

 

 

i mean honestly what do you guys do during Muharram?  Do you pay any attention?  

 

true , this question really need every ones attention.

Edited by alirex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this logic by a couple of people here...

The Abbasid Caliph oppressed Shias, so we support the Mongols invading Muslim lands and killing millions of Muslims (likely including Shias)....

 

i mean honestly what do you guys do during Muharram?  Do you pay any attention?  

 

Do you even read threads before posting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...