“But after that, O people, God took Pharaoh when he said, ‘I am your Supreme Lord,’ and if people have the right to do this religion, the sons of the first immigrants and the consoling supporters. Oh God, they have forbidden you, and forbidden your lawful, and believe in those you hidden, and fear those you believe, Oh God, count them in number, kill them in vain, and do not leave any of them. O people, by Allah, I did not come out from among your backs, and you are my people of strength or severity, but I chose you for myself, and by Allah, I did not come to this and in the land of Egypt, Allah is worshiped in it unless he took allegiance to me in it” (Tarikh al-Tabari).
Thus, Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn al-Hasan al-Muthanna al-Hashemi, nicknamed “The Pure Soul” (d. 145 AH/763 CE), announced from the pulpit of the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina his revolutionary manifesto to overthrow the rule of the Abbasid caliph Abu Ja’far al-Mansur (d. 157 AH/775 CE), after he decided to appear in public in the streets of the Prophet’s city carrying his revolutionary ideals among its people, on the first day of Rajab in 145 AH / 763 CE.
The impact of his majestic exit was magic in the people of the city and those who followed them from the Arab tribes, and when they found him among them, they called out to him in its streets: “The Mahdi… Mahdi”! In the eyes of his supporters, he represented a great hope for change, a revolutionary answer to the wasteland that was filled with a hole that the masses clung to, according to historians’ testimonies.
According to the historian Abu Ja’far ibn Tabataba al-‘Alawi, known as Ibn al-Tuqtaqi (d. 709 AH/1309 CE), in his book al-Fakhri fi al-Adab al-Sultaniyya, the people of Medina “were very inclined to the pure soul, and they believed in him virtue, honor and the presidency,” and therefore his call had an impact in many parts of the Ummah where he was “sold to him in the horizons”, as Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari (d. 324 AH/936 CE) says in his book Articles of the Islamists.
The discourse of the “pure soul” was based on the demands for reform embodied in the extended revolutionary legacy of the Ahl al-Bayt since the revolt of Hussein bin Ali bin Abi Talib (d. 61 AH / 682 AD) against the Umayyads in 60 AH / 681 AD, and his high demands for the revival of the studied Shura values. They are taken by oppression and oppression.
Of course, when this highly delegitimized ideal collides with the authority of the compelling reality – especially when it is in its young and rising phase, as in the case of the Abbasids when the pure soul revolted – it will result in a terrible ordeal, as demonstrated by previous revolutionary models and the gift of the pure soul became another example.
In the early years of al-Mansur’s reign, the Alawi house, represented by its Hassani branch, and with them a group of scholars and prominent figures from the houses of the Companions, emigrants and supporters, such as “Ould (= children) Ali, Ja’far and Aqeel [sons of Abu Talib], Umar ibn al-Khattab (d. 23 AH/645 CE), al-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwam (d. 36 AH/657 CE), and all the other Quraysh and Awlad al-Ansar (d. 749 AH/1348 CE) were born in his book Maslak al-Absar.
Thus, a great ordeal was inflicted on them – at the hands of their Abbasid cousins – no less fierce than what befell the Alawite house, especially its Husayni branch, with the Umayyads in the revolts of the two Imams Hussein bin Ali and his grandson Zaid bin Ali Zayn al-Abidin al-Hashemi (d. 122 AH/740 CE).
Indeed, the revolution of the pure soul was an unfolding historical event, as it mobilized masses of political opposition in the eastern flank of the geography of the caliphate in Khorasan and beyond, as well as in the Islamic West, and mobilized under its banner a group of trusted scholars such as the great imams Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH/768 CE) in Iraq and Malik bin Anas (d. 179 AH/795 CE) in the Hijaz, and supported by the elite of the first class of the Mu’tazila movement and a number of tribal groupings opposed to the rising Abbasid state.
Moreover, this revolution with a broad political ground represented an extension of the consensual framework established by Imam Zaid, whose political and intellectual program was characterized by a consensual nature so that the groups met on a common point, and this consensus momentum has moved to the revolution of the pure soul, but the amount of overlap between the two revolutions makes it certain that the pure soul remained governed by the jurisprudential and jurisprudential ceiling of his cousin Imam Zayd so that he represented his opinion on the caliphate and allegiance, and perhaps all that was As a result, al-Bayt al-Hasani has historically become the major incubator for the Zaidi movement until today.
As for the Jaafari branch – relative to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq al-Hashemi (d. 148 AH / 766 AD) – it drew the approach that became representative of the line of political thought of the Sunnis, which is to proceed with the scientific imamate, which was often contrary to political authority, and retired from the revolution and the so-called “sedition”, and this was a form of negative protest in which large crowds of followers and predecessors engaged, after the bitter losses suffered by the armed political revolutions in which a number of remnants of the Companions and senior scholars of the followers and their followers were engaged., in the period between 50-145 AH / 672-763 AD.
In the rule of history, the movement of the pure soul seems a revolution in order to reform the course of the Abbasid revolution, which emerged from the womb of major preparations and violent clashes that the pure soul himself was one of its leaders and a partner in making, but it was given to him early pledge of allegiance from most of the Hashemite house to lead the expected great transformation so that he becomes the first caliph in the new state, he and the Abbasids and other currents belong to a major revolutionary wave whose activity took decades.
It is well known that major transformations in history are inflamed by internal conflicts, and their atmosphere is filled with political turmoil and social anxiety, and the makers and those who launched the revolution often become the first victims. While one of the leaders of the French Revolution, Georges Danton (d. 1208 AH/1794 CE), was quoted as saying that “the revolution eats its sons”, this statement applies perfectly to the Hashemite revolt against the Umayyads in all its revolutionary sequences.
If the historian Imam Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH/1441 CE) was interested in the political conflict between the Umayyads and the Banu Hashim until he wrote in it his famous work “The Book of Conflict and Quarrel between the Umayyads and the Banu Hashim”, the story of al-Bayt al-Hasani in the revolution of the pure soul and the subsequent deepening of his quarrel with the Abbasid house deserves to be devoted to pages.
This article seeks to edit the features of the saying in the story of the revolutionary path in which Imam Al-Nasoul Al-Zakia went in his confrontation with the Abbasids after the Umayyads, and to draw the features of the political environment and the revolutionary incubator in which he and the masses of his supporters moved, with a statement of the most prominent factors of strength and weakness that permeated his revolutionary movement, and the most important logical reasons that led to its setback and then failure, and the results that resulted from this remarkable revolutionary experience, especially since we live – in our days – some of the effects and fruits of this Track.
The birth of a machine
The narrations differ on the date of birth of Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Al-Hassan bin Al-Hassan bin Ali bin Abi Talib, nicknamed “the pure soul” (d. 145 AH/763 CE). If we adopt the narration of the historian al-Baladheri (d. 279 AH/892 CE) in his book Ansab al-Ashraf that he was “one of the sons of sixty at the time of his death”, this means that he was born at least in 80 AH / 700 CE.
Although sources differ on his date of birth, they agree that he grew up in a family from the depth of the Hashemite house, as his father was Abdullah bin Al-Hassan bin Al-Hassan bin Ali bin Abi Talib (d. 145 AH/763 CE), who was nicknamed “Al-Madh” or “Al-Kamil” because “he was one of the most beautiful, complete, and educated people”, according to the historian Kamal al-Din al-Futi (d. 723 AH/1323 CE) in Majma’ al-Adab fi al-Mu’jam al-Ayyam.
According to Abu al-Faraj al-Asbahani (d. 356 AH/967 CE) in his book Muqatil al-Talbiyyin, these qualities prepared Abdullah to be “the most worthy of the caliphate”, as al-Futi says.
As for the mother of the pure soul, she is Hind bint Abi Ubaidah bin Abdullah bin Zam’ah bin Al-Aswad bin Al-Muttalib Al-Qurashi Al-Asadi, so his lineage is from the heart of the Quraysh, and therefore “he was called ‘Sareeh Quraish’ because there was no mother born from him (= maidservant) in all his fathers, mothers and grandmothers”, according to Abu al-Faraj al-Asbahani.
In the atmosphere of the society of the Prophet’s city full of tributaries of knowledge, the pure soul made his way seeking knowledge from his father first and then a narrator about the imams of the followers, so he took the book strongly and collected the Sunnah very carefully, and he described to us part of his relentless pursuit by saying: “I used to seek knowledge in the role of the Ansar until I used to touch the threshold of one of them, and the person woke me up and said: Your master has gone out to pray, what counts me but his servant”!!
This is according to al-Isfahani, who adds that the father of the pure soul used to accompany his sons Muhammad and Ibrahim to the updated Imam Tawoos ibn Kisan al-Yamani (d. 132 AH/751 CE) and tell him: “Tell them may Allah benefit them.” Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH/1347 CE), in Sir al-Ulam al-Nubala, presents the imams from whom the pure soul derived his knowledge and scientific formation: “It was narrated from Nafi’ (Mawla ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (d. 117 AH/736 CE) and Abu al-Zinad (‘Abdullah ibn Dhakwan (d. 130 AH/749 CE).”
Although the sources were full of details of the scientific life of the pure soul, like other contemporaries who saved their quest for science endurance and performance, without paying attention to public affairs in terms of politics and reform, they provided us with data suggestive of his scientific presence at the level of teaching and fatwas, despite the circumstances of his revolutionary life and the concealment imposed in order to avoid the oppression of the Umayyad and Abbasid authorities.
For example, al-Dhahabi tells us that he was one of his disciples who narrated “from him: ‘Abdullah ibn Ja’far al-Makhrami (d. 170 AH/786 CE), ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Darawardi (d. 186 AH/802 CE), and ‘Abdullah ibn Nafi’ al-Sayegh (d. 206 AH/821 CE).” After him, they became scholars who established scientific schools in Iraq and the Hijaz, and graduated from them great imams in hadith and jurisprudence, for his student al-Mukhrami mentions Ibn Sa’d al-Samani (d. 562 AH/1167 CE) in his book al-Ansab that “the Iraqis and the people of Medina narrated about him.”
His disciple al-Darawardi says in his ‘Biographies of the Nobles’ that he “narrated from him [the two Imams al-Hafiz]: Shu’ba (Ibn al-Hajjaj (d. 160 AH/777 CE), and al-Thawri (Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161 AH/778 CE), who are older than him [Sunna], and Ishaq ibn Rahwayh (d. 238 AH/852 CE)… , and created many. Ma’an ibn ‘Issa (al-Ashja’i al-Imam al-Hafiz (d. 198 AH/814 CE) said: It is fit for al-Darawardi to be the Commander of the Faithful… I said (= Al-Dhahabi): His hadith in the six collections of Islam… In any case, his speech… He does not degrade from the rank of good.” Ibn al-Atheer stated – in al-Kamil – that al-Darawardi was among the fighters with his sheikh al-Nasoul al-Zakiya in his revolution, and that he made him a supervisor of the “House of Arms” i.e. Minister of Defense.
As for the third disciple of the pure soul, Ibn Nafi’ al-Sayegh, he became “one of the great jurists of Medina” according to al-Dhahabi, who describes him as the most knowledgeable disciple of Imam Malik bin Anas (d. 179 AH/795 CE) “because of the length of his companionship, and he was the one who succeeded him in his council after Ibn Kinana (Uthman bin Isa bin Kinana, who died 185 AH / 801 AD)… He was the mufti of the people of the city.”
In the field of narrating the hadith of the Prophet, al-Dhahabi adds that the pure soul was “documented by al-Nasa’i and others” among the imams of the hadiths, including Ibn Hibban (d. 345 AH/959 CE), Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH/1448 CE), and his narrations in the collections of hadith were also produced by legends such as Imam al-Daraqutni (d. 385 AH/996 CE), Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH/933 CE), Abu Dawood al-Sijistani (d. 275 AH/888 CE), al-Nasa’i (d. 303 AH/915 CE) in his Sunnah al-Kubra, and al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH/1067 CE) in his Great Sunnah.
ورغم أنه لم تردنا مصنفات علمية تركها النفس الزكية الذي قُتل في مطلع عصر التدوين؛ فإن كثيرا من مؤلفات المذهب الزيدي وغيرها تنقل عنه عددا من آرائه الفقهية، ولاسيما في بعض مباحث الفقه السياسي. وقد وُثقت مقولاتُه تلك في كتاب جمعها فيه وحققها الدكتور رضوان السيد بعنوان: «النفس الزكية: كتاب السِّيَر وما بقي من رسائل الدعوة والثورة». وعند تتتبع مقولاته في أبواب مثل الجهاد وقتال “البُغاة” (المعارضة السياسية المسلحة) ندرك جانبا من متانة تكوينه العلمي وعمق وأصالة آرائه وفتاويه.
Perhaps the most important thing about his jurisprudential views – related to politics and war – is not only their proof of his high scientific status, but also their disclosure that his revolution was not a random outburst, but rather was immune jurisprudential and intellectual, and that he was preoccupied with a reformist religious reading of his reality that he seeks to apply, and related to all aspects of religious, political and economic life, the state of peace, war, international relations and so on. That is, his revolution was not merely a reaction to entrenched authoritarianism as much as a reflection of the fertile intellectual environment that inspired and produced it.
As for the features of his personality, Imam Ibn al-Atheer (d. 630 AH / 1233 CE) describes him – in his ‘complete’ history – saying: “Muhammad was very tanned, and al-Mansur called him a protector [because of his blackness], and he was a brave fat man who fasted and prayed, very strong.” As for this feature of his physical strength, Al-Omari mentions – in ‘Paths of Sight’ – a story of great significance, saying: “Muhammad bin Abdullah was a hand (= strong), he displaced his father with a camel, except for a group behind him, and no one followed him except him, so he grabbed his guilt and still attracted him until he took off, and he returned with guilt in his hand”!!
A revolutionary inheritance
In addition to that powerful family education and solid scientific formation, the pure soul grew up in the Prophet’s city with its special character, as it is the incubator of the first Islamic social and political model, and it was then a center for the remaining senior companions and a home for their children, as it is a habitat for the followers and their followers from the imams of the novel and know-how and the flags of advocacy and science in the early days of Islam. All this made the city a custodian of the ideals and principles of Islam, shocking in the face of evil and supporting every call that seeks to return the nation to the method of governance by Shura.
The pure soul was one of its sons whose awareness was associated with all the principles embodied in its environment, and the history it represents in the manufacture of caliphs when it was the capital of the Islamic state, and then in the traditions of political opposition since the transfer of the center of power to Iraq first and then to the Levant with the state of Bani Umayyah, and the harm and troubles it received during the era of their authority as a result of its disobedience to their obedience.
However, if the city, on the one hand “geography of ideas”, was an ideal environment for revolutionary thought that attracted men like the pure soul, in terms of “geopolitics”, it remained a soft side for any armed struggle movement for an important natural reason, namely the nature of its land sandwiched between its surrounding volcanic mountain masses, the weakness of its own economic resources, and the ease of besieging it and preventing its supply at the hands of any invading force.
Al-Baladheri tells us that when the news of the announcement of the revolution reached Al-Mansour in Iraq, he thought of a way to impose an economic blockade on the revolutionaries, and then said: “We write to Egypt at the time that Al-Meera (= food supplies) be cut off from the people of the Two Holy Mosques, and they are in such a critical (= wrapped tree) if Al-Meera does not come from Egypt” through ships and sea boats!!
One of his advisors also advised him to besiege it from the Levant side, saying: “Send a sire to you to trust him, so let him go down to Wadi al-Qura (located today about 290 km northwest of Medina) and Mira al-Sham will prevent him, and he will die of starvation in his place, so al-Mansour did so, according to al-Tabari.
The city’s unsuitability for armed revolution was exemplified in the Qari’a that afflicted it about twenty years before the birth of the pure soul, namely the “free revolution” in 63 AH / 684 CE, in which the people of Medina tried – during the reign of the Companions – to change the Umayyad rule by force during the days of the caliph Yazid bin Muawiyah (d. 64 AH / 685 CE).
Imam Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH / 1347 CE) mentioned in his ‘Biographies of the Nobles’ some details of this revolt that raged against Yazid, saying: “And only one came out against him – after al-Husayn – like the people of Medina; This “free revolution” was led by Abdullah ibn Muti’ al-Adawi (d. 73 AH/693 CE) as emir of al-Muhajireen and Abdullah ibn Handalah al-Ansari (d. 63 AH/684 CE) as emir of the Ansar.
The people of Medina deposed the pledge of allegiance to Yazid and pledged allegiance to Abdullah bin Muti’ at the pulpit of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and made his mosque the seat of government of his nascent state, and most of the people of Medina went out with him to fight Yazid’s army coming from the Levant, and their men had great sacrifices in this revolution, as Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH / 1372 AD) quoted Imam Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (d. 124 AH / 743 AD) as saying that he was asked about the number of “dead on the day of al-Hurra [F]he said: Seven hundred faces of people, including immigrants, supporters, and the faces of the loyalist, and those who I do not know of free, slave and others, ten thousand.”
In the middle of his revolution, when a follower asked him to go to Mecca and leave Medina, he replied, “He said, ‘If you lose sight of Medina, its people will be killed just as the people of al-Hurra were killed.'”
His first experience with Imam Hussein began when he preferred the revolution as a means of political protest against the early Umayyads, and was reinforced by his second experience, which he experienced when he joined his cousin Imam Zaid bin Ali Zain al-Abidin al-Hashemi (d. 122 AH / 740 AD) in his revolt against the late Umayyad rulers, and justified his movement by saying:
“Rather, I went out against the Umayyads who fought my grandfather Hussein, raided the city on the day of al-Hurra, and threw the house of God with a catapult stone and fire” in their fight against the companion rebellious against their rule, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (d. 73 AH/693 CE), as narrated by Zaid, historian of currents and ideas Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani (d. 429 AH/1039 CE) in his book al-Fariq al-Fariq.
The Hashemite revolutionary consciousness was linked to the pursuit of change, so the pure soul joined the army of Imam Zayd at about forty years old, and one of his soldiers was aware of the extensions of the Zaidi revolution, represented in the departure of the son of its leader, Yahya bin Zayd (d. 126 AH / 745 AD) in Khorasan in 122 AH / 741 AD, and then in the departure of their cousin Abdullah bin Muawiyah bin Abdullah bin Jaafar bin Abi Talib, who was killed in 127 AH / 746 AD after “some people came to him from the people of Kufa went out and prevailed over Helwan and the mountains” in eastern Iraq, according to Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH / 922 CE) in his history.
Despite the failure of the Zaidi revolution and the subsequent frustration of most of its supporters, its revolutionary path did not lose its luster among the pure soul and among a large part of his family and supporters, especially since the departure from the imams of injustice has become an original principle of the Zaidis, and then it was practically strengthened by recommending Yahya bin Zaid to lead the revolution after him to two of his cousins from the Hasani house, as he “delegated the matter after him to Muhammad (= pure soul) and Ibrahim the two imams”, according to the historian of ideas and difference Abi Al-Fath al-Shahrastani (d. 548 AH/1153 CE) in his book al-Mulal wa al-Nahl.
Ibrahim who is recommended with the pure soul is his brother Ibrahim ibn Abdullah (d. 145 AH/763 CE), who led the wing of the revolution in Basra. According to Isfahani in ‘The Fighter of the Talbiyin’, they were joined in the revolution by some sons of the Husseini house, among them “Hussein and Isa, sons of Zaid bin Ali”, and when it came to the father of the Abbasid Caliph Jaafar al-Mansur, “he said: The wonder is that my son Zaid came out, and we killed their father’s killer as he killed him”!!
Like the pure soul, most of his brothers were revolutionaries against the Abbasids, as they rushed on the path of change and spread the spirit of political opposition and resistance to injustice in the lands of Islam. Imam Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi (d. 456 AH/1065 CE), in his book Jamhrat Ansab al-Arab, lists the names of the sons of the Hasani House of this revolutionary effort: “Muhammad al-Qa’im (= rebel) in Medina, Ibrahim al-Qa’im in Basra, Yahya (d. circa 180 AH/796 CE), al-Qa’im al-Daylam (= the northernmost point of Iran), Idris al-Asghar (d. 213 AH/828 CE), al-Qa’im in Morocco, and Suleiman killed by a trap, a town near Mecca where he revolted against the Abbasids in 169 AH/785 CE.
Paved harbingers
Because of the high status of the pure soul in his knowledge, family and society, he became fraught with care and reverence from the family of the house, so they used to “call him the Mahdi and appreciate that he is the one in which the narration came” that he is the “Mahdi” because his gift is likened to that of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as narrated by al-Isfahani, who adds that “the scholars of the family of Abi Talib saw him as the “pure soul”.
His father, Abdullah ibn al-Hassan, was preparing his family and two sons to lead the great transformation, and al-Baladheri says: “Abdullah nominated his sons Muhammad and Ibrahim for succession before he succeeded the Commander of the Faithful, Abu al-Abbas al-Saffah (d. 136 AH/754 CE), and Muhammad named his son ‘Mahdi’ and ‘pure soul’.”
Although Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq did not agree with the pledge of allegiance to the pure soul, he held the same esteem for him as the entire Hashemite family: “If Muhammad bin Abdullah [bin Hassan] saw his eyes gargled, then he would say: ‘By myself!’ People would say that he is the Mahdi and that he is killed.” Al-Isfahani narrates from one of the narrators a situation that he witnessed, saying: “Ja’far and I were reclining in the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when he jumped in terror to a man on a mule, and he stood with him on the one hand and put his hand on the knowledge (= the position of custom) the mule, then he returned and I asked him about it, and he said: You are ignorant of it?! This is Muhammad bin Abdullah Mahdina Ahl al-Bayt”!!
Not even his most famous opponent, Abu Ja’far al-Mansur, deviated from this consensus: ‘Umayr ibn al-Fadl al-Khathami said, “I saw Abu Ja’far al-Mansur one day when Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al-Hasan came out of his son’s house, and he had a horse standing at the door… Abu Ja’far was waiting for him, and when he went out, Abu Ja’far jumped and took his robe until he got on, and then straightened his clothes on the saddle, and Muhammad went away, and I said, and I knew him at that time and did not know Muhammad: Who is this whom this greatness magnified until I took his passengers and ironed his clothes on him?! He said: Or what do you know?! I said, “No! He said: “This is Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Hassan, the guide of Ahl al-Bayt,” according to al-Isfahani.
One of the results of this position in the family of the house was that “God threw His love on the people and they leaned towards him all, and then supported by the fact that the supervisors of Bani Hashim pledged allegiance to him and nominated him for the matter, so they presented him to their souls, so his desire to seek the order increased (= the caliphate), and the people’s desire for it increased” to take it over, according to Ibn al-Tuqtaqi.
This consensus confirms the personal and moral entitlement enjoyed by the pure soul and made him receive all this appreciation, and it seems that the payment of his “gift” was due to the longing for change, and the search for a hero who responds to grievances and simplifies justice and security, and restores the Muslim caliphate to its first biography, and these hopes have reached their peak at the end of the Umayyad era, not only when the family of the house, but when great crowds of Hijazi society at least, especially since the movement of the pure soul came in an Isthmian era that witnessed a crack pillars of one state and motivates others to rise.
It is the nature of periods such as these to ascend dreams and hopes, but the pure soul – according to his biography – did not rely on those honorary titles only, although he employed them in the speech of family legitimacy that Al-Mansour competed with, so the pure soul issued his messages to him by saying: “From the Mahdi Muhammad bin Abdullah”; Ja’far for going out [with the pure soul] and saying [to him] reproaching: If the Mahdi passes by you while you are at home, do not go out to him until the people gather around him.” It is also narrated that the governor of Medina at the time arrested one of the scholars, the imams who supported the pure soul, “and he cursed him and ordered his hand to be cut off, and the scholars said: May God fix the prince! This is the jurist and worshipper of the city, and he likened him to the Mahdi! The governor left him and did not punish him.
However, the pure soul nevertheless employed his title provided a pure political discourse and an effective practical and kinetic practice, and raised just demands that affect the aspirations of the majority of the nation, which made him eligible to play this role, as well as he adhered to the path of his uncle Zaid, who made the “Imam”, whatever his descriptions and titles, gain legitimacy only in his role in change and sacrifice, and then to gain the satisfaction of the people and pledge allegiance to them.
The Zaydis, as the Chief Justice of Ibn Khaldun (d. 808 AH/1406 CE) says in al-Muqaddimah (The Introduction), is known for “following their doctrine of the Imamate and that it is by choosing the people of the solution and the contract, not by text.” The pure soul combined revolutionary merit with the legitimacy of pledge of allegiance from many countries, regardless of what was meant by the descriptions of “Mahdism” that were given to him.
In the context of the harbingers of the declaration of his revolution against the Abbasids, the books of translations and history convey that the pure soul was obligated to the desert and live a life of solitude in its flutes, and the caliphs and their loyalties do not come so that this is not an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of their mandate, so that – as Al-Omari says in ‘Paths of Sight’ – he has “stayed for years hidden in the mountains of Tayy: [Aja and Salma]” which are located today in the Hail region in northern Saudi Arabia.
It seems that this disguise was related to his secret revolutionary activity in preparation for tightening the order of the revolution away from the eyes of the Abbasids, and this is what Al-Baladheri suggests by saying: “Muhammad bin Abdullah was hidden and was pledged allegiance to people from his household and from the Quraysh, and he used to go out to the desert and prolong the place and then sometimes appear and sometimes hidden.”
Imam Muhammad ibn Sa’d al-Zuhri (d. 230 AH/845 CE) narrated in his book al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (The Great Classes) that he said: “I came to Hisham ibn ‘Abd al-Malik (d. 125 AH/746 CE) and he said to me: ‘Why should I not see your sons Muhammad and Ibrahim coming to us in whom did he come to us?’ He said: I said: O Commander of the Faithful! Love them desert and solitude in it, not lagging behind the Commander of the Faithful for the abhorrent, silence Hisham “!!
Hijacked
legitimacy The revolutionary ground from which the pure soul movement emerged and the subsequent major transformations – according to the historian Ibn al-Tuqtaqi – was established in the “tail (= end) of the state of Bani Umayyah”, especially after the setback of the revolution of Imam Zaid in Iraq and his son Yahya in Khorasan, and before that the faltering of the movement of Imam Hussein, all of which left a deep impact on the hearts of the Bani Hashim of the Talbiyyin and Abbasids, and prompted them to think about ways to continue this extended “Salafi” revolutionary path.
According to Ibn al-Tuqtaqi, a meeting of the Hashemites was held in Mecca at the end of the reign of the last Umayyad caliph, Marwan ibn Muhammad (d. 132 AH/751 CE), and was attended by “the notables of Banu Hashim, their Alawites and Abbasids, and it was attended by the notables of the Talbis: al-Sadiq Ja’far bin Muhammad… Abdullah ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 144 AH/762 CE), his sons Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyah and Ibrahim killed Bakhamari (= a town between Basra and Kufa), and a group of Talbis. Among the notables of the Abbasids: Al-Saffah, Al-Mansur, and other Al-Abbas family.”
This historic meeting generated the features of major transformations that were destined to shape the political history of the Nation of Islam throughout the centuries to come. The source of the meeting was the severity of the reality experienced by the nation and the distress experienced by the Hashemites, so “remember their situation and what they are from persecution, and what has become of the Umayyads of turmoil, and the tendency of people to them (= Hashemites) and their love to have a call, and then they said we must have a president to pledge allegiance to him”!
Ibn al-Tuqtaqi adds that the Hashemites unanimously “agreed to pledge allegiance to Muhammad bin Abdullah bin al-Hasan bin al-Hassan… And he was one of the masters of Bani Hashim and their men in virtue, honor and knowledge. Except Imam Ja’far bin Muhammad al-Sadiq, he said to his father (= pure soul) Abdullah al-Mahdh: Your son does not receive it – meaning the caliphate – and will only receive it the owner of the yellow (= caftan), meaning Al-Mansur, and Al-Mansur then had a yellow cape. Al-Mansur said, “I arranged the workers (= his government officials) in me from that hour! Then they agreed to pledge allegiance to the pure soul and pledged allegiance to him, and then the age struck him, and the king moved to Bani al-Abbas”!!
In fact, what happened was not a blow of indiscriminateness of the ages, but a well-planned plan by the Bani al-Abbas, who marched along with all the revolutionary groups that had converged at the end of the Umayyad dynasty. They were then able to steer the course of the revolution or “hijack it”, and direct its movement towards their motivated forces in Khorasan, which was their most intelligent bet in terms of geopolitics.
He believed the intuition of Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, who saw the outcome of change and the change of nervousness towards the Abbasids, and realized that the balance of power was not in the interest of the pure soul and his team, nor was it in the interest of Imam Zaid before him, and therefore refused to engage in a revolution that saw its losing results.
Perhaps one of the reasons for Jaafar al-Sadiq’s refusal to pledge allegiance to the pure soul may be his reservation on his eligibility, which is the leader of the revolution submitted to the caliphate, especially since he is his counterpart in age, including the impact of contemporary and its withholding of advocacy among peers, and perhaps that is what Jaafar al-Sadiq meant when he addressed the father of the pure soul, saying: “You are a sheikh, and if you want to pledge allegiance to you, but your son, by God, I do not pledge allegiance to him and I will leave you”, according to the narration of Al-Isfahani.
In fact, Al-Dhahabi says – in ‘History of Islam’ – about Jaafar’s position on the revolution of the pure soul that he not only did not support it, but he was discouraging it from all those who wanted to join it from his family and “says to him: He and God are killed”!! When the events of the revolution broke out, “Jaafar al-Sadiq disappeared and went to his money in the branch (= a town that belonged to the city) to retire from sedition,” even though he was then “the master of the Alawites in his time”, according to al-Dhahabi in his book ‘Al-Alw li-Ali al-Ghaffar’. Perhaps Al-Dhahabi meant here that Ja’far was the master of the Husseini branch of the Alawites, because we have presented that the master of the Hashemites in its days was Abdullah Al-Mahdh, the father of the pure soul.
Perhaps this meeting and the consequent Hashemite agreement and then the facts of the Abbasid faction’s coup against it, gives us a logical explanation for the cruelty of the horrific clash that took place between the sons of the same revolution, and its facts took place between the Alawites and their Abbasid cousins, the Hasani House felt betrayed and overturned a signed pledge of allegiance and a remarkable agreement, and they saw the kidnapping of the fruits of the revolutionary path after the Alawites were its vanguard and leaders, which was expressed by the pure soul in his correspondence with Al-Mansour: “The truth is our right, but you claimed this matter from us, and you went out to it with our ugliness and you were blessed with us”!!
On the other hand, Al-Mansur and his Shiites felt qualified to assume the caliphate in terms of the realities of the balance of thorns and the effectiveness of the revolutionary performance, and that they were the ones who brought the revolution project out of a state of liquidity to a situation of organization and mobilization, and they imagine that the successes that brought down the Umayyads were due to their long-term preparations, and even their absorption of the bitter losses that the Hashemites – led by the Alawites – fell into in their previous rounds with the Umayyads, and that they would not allow the defeat of the Hashemites to be repeated again.
In their secret revolutionary history, the Abbasids paid a heavy price, not least at the cost of the pressing Umayyad security pursuits experienced by their senior men. Imam Ibn Asaker (d. 571 AH / 1175 CE) tells us in Tareekh Dimashq that the brother of al-Mansur Ibrahim ibn Muhammad, known as Ibrahim al-Imam (d. 131 AH/750 CE), remained “disappeared by a man from the people of Kufa who dug a tunnel in the ground for him”!!
Ibrahim the Imam remained hidden in his secret tunnel until he revealed to the Umayyads one of the men of his da’wa who was one of the liaison officers between him and the field commander of the revolution in Khorasan Abu Muslim al-Khorasani (d. 137 AH/755 CE), at which point “[the Umayyad caliph] Marwan ibn Muhammad (d. 132 AH/751 CE) stood up to his news, and directed [his soldiers] to him, and he took him, imprisoned him and killed him”!
The Abbasids also had their own interpretation of the issue of the legitimacy of entitlement to the caliphate by the Prophet’s lineage and kinship with the author of the message, peace be upon him, an issue that remained present among the revolutionaries of the Hashemites in order to politically exploit and promote legitimacy in the hearts of the general public.
Therefore, the Abbasids argued that the inheritance of the caliphate was an inherent legitimate right of the sons of al-Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and not of the sons of Fatima (may Allaah be pleased with her). This is what al-Mansur showed in his letters in response to the pure soul by saying: “But you are the sons of his daughter [peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him], and she is a close relative, but she is not allowed to inherit, and she does not inherit the guardianship and she is not permissible to lead the imamate, so how can she inherit it?” according to Ibn al-Atheer’s narration.
He was good at expressing this jurisprudential argument “hypothesis” that the Abbasids held by the poet of their court Marwan Ibn Abi Hafsa (d. 182 AH / 798 AD) by saying:
What is obligatory for women with men ** Surat Al-An’am
was revealed so that I am not that being ** For the sons of daughters inheriting uncles?!
Perhaps the struggle of these narratives and interpretations, and the competition for the leadership of the revolutionary ground that occurred between the two Hashemite currents, is what made the new conflict between them bitter and dangerous, as the Alawite current – especially its branch Al-Hasani – decided to confront, and the Abbasid current responded by killing them and exaggerating their repression, so the Abbasid state made the way of its inception while bearing the burden of this family conflict that it later distanced from, and led to its weakness in the end due to the conflict of races and races in it and on it, until they were surprised – in the era of their second state – by the Fatimids while they were threatened Their state, raising the banner of affiliation to Fatima al-Zahra, may God be pleased with her!
Double containment When the Abbasid state and Abu al-Abbas al-Saffah became the Commander of the Faithful, who was present at the famous pledge of allegiance to the pure soul in Mecca, he was not left worried about the moves made by the Alawite House represented by its Hasani branch, which inherited the Zaidi movement.
Of course, the butcher was familiar with the stages of revolutionary preparation for this current, and aware of the aspirations of the pure soul and his followers in various regions, and so he was suspicious of the absence of his two revolutionary sons Muhammad and Ibrahim from attending his court, and skeptical of the intentions of their father Abdullah “intensified [butcher] him in the request of his two sons, he said: absenteeism, I do not know where they are! He said, ‘You are their absence,'” according to al-Isfahani in Muqatil al-Taliban.
But the butcher did not rush the confrontation with the Hassans, the circumstance did not allow the opening of a new internal war front, as the state is in the process of establishment and the Umayyad threats still exist, but the differences within the Abbasid house itself were burning on the right to assume the caliphate, so the butcher took a flexible way to accommodate the revolution Hassania hidden, was waving the penalty of death in the event that the revolutionaries did not respond to the pledge of allegiance to the Abbasids, including that he addressed Abdullah, the father of the pure soul and his brother Ibrahim, “He said: But I do not seek him, and God will kill Muhammad and kill Ibrahim,” according to al-Baladheri.
On the other hand, one of the methods of carrot was that he “singled out Abdullah and his brother (= brother) and influenced him,” and he once said to him: “O Abu Muhammad! I am satisfied with your son Muhammad to pledge allegiance in Medina and not to be diagnosed (= attended) to me, and he said: By Allah, O Commander of the Faithful, I do not know where he settles”, as Al-Baladheri mentions.
Abu al-Abbas even sought to marry his rebellious rival, as “Muhammad married his son Zaynab bint Muhammad bin Abdullah,” i.e., the daughter of the pure soul. He also tried to offer his family some rewards and gifts: Abdullah bin Al-Hassan, the father of the pure soul, “Abu al-Abbas (= the butcher) heard him say: I have never seen a thousand thousand dirhams (= today two million US dollars) combined! He called him for a thousand thousand dirhams and connected him to it and said: “He gave us some of our rights”!!
With al-Mansur’s accession to the caliphate – following the death of his butcher brother – many methods of management in governance changed, so “the origin of the state, the control of the kingdom, the arrangement of rules and the establishment of the law (= public order)”, according to Ibn al-Tuqtaqi. But he remained certain that continuing his brother’s methods would not work with his Alawite cousins, so he decided to openly confront them relentlessly, thus “al-Mansur was the first to cause strife between the Abbasids and the Alawites, and they were before one thing,” according to Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH/1505 CE) in his History of the Caliphs.
What encouraged al-Mansur to open the conflict with the Alawites was that the state had moved towards stability and eliminated most of its opponents, as he liquidated the rebellion of the historical leader of the Abbasid revolution, Abu Muslim al-Khurasani, resolved the unrest that threatened the state in its eastern flank, and controlled the rebellion of his uncle Abdullah bin Ali (d. 147 AH / 765 CE), who had the greatest role in the liquidation of the last Umayyad caliphs.
In general, al-Mansur absorbed what Ibn al-Atheer called the “hernias and events” that faced the state in the time of the butcher, leaving him with only the burning revolutionary points in Mecca, Medina and Kufa. Therefore, “when al-Mansur succeeded, his concern was only with Muhammad’s command [the pure soul], and the issue (= the question) about him and what he wanted, so Bani Hashim called a man a man who would ask everyone secretly about him, and they all say that he knew that you knew him asking for this matter, for he fears you for himself, and he does not want you to disagree”, according to Ibn al-Atheer. Al-Tabari explains al-Mansur’s preoccupation with the subject of the pure soul by saying that “Abu Ja’far had a contract for him [the pledge of allegiance] in Mecca among people from the Mu’tazila” before the fall of the Umayyads!
Al-Mansur tried to lure Muhammad into the pure soul by attending and pledging allegiance to an approach close to that of his brother, but their father knew Al-Mansur’s intention and said to him: “Hallelujah! I will bring you my son to kill them”!!
Security
pursuits The most serious challenge facing Al-Mansur was to be assured that there were no mourners for the pure soul from within his statesmen and workers, and he was able, with his skillful security style, to put under his close follow-up his governor of the city, Ziyad bin Obaidullah Al-Harithi (d. after 145 AH / 763 AD), which enabled him to see the lack of sincerity of the director of the governor’s office. Al-Mansur accused Ziada himself of supporting the revolutionaries, and told him: “God killed me if I did not kill you! I warned my son Abdullah until they escaped after they appeared.”
The truth is that Ziyada allowed the pure soul to come to Medina secretly and take allegiance from the people, so Al-Mansur deposed him, as did two of the governors whom he appointed over the city as a successor to Al-Harithi, and only his third governor, Riah bin Othman bin Hayyan Al-Marri (d. 145 AH / 763 AD), who reminded the people of the city of the defeat of their ancestors in front of the army of his cousin Muslim bin Uqba Al-Marri (d. 64 AH / 685 AD) in the incident of Al-Hurra, and threatened them with repeating its catastrophe, saying, according to Al-Baladheri: “O people of Yathrib, there is no place for you, so wait (= slow down), I am the cousin of Muslim bin Uqba who was very heavy on you, the woe (= heavy) fell on you, the malicious biography in you, then you are today after those who were reaped by the sword, and God bless you after those who reaped, and to wear humiliation after those who dressed”!!
But Al-Mansur took the expected danger from his statesmen as an opportunity to trap his opponent and get him out of hiding; al-Tabari tells us that “Abu Jaafar used to write to Muhammad about the tongues of his commanders, inviting him to appear and telling him that they were with him”, and it seems that this trick was launched on the pure soul when he believed these mined messages, “Muhammad used to say: If we met [the army of Al-Mansur] all of them would have tended to pimp”!!
Al-Mansour did not limit his security method or the follow-up of his intelligence apparatus to immunizing his state employees; rather, he practiced it intensively and varietally on the forces of civil society in the city and beyond, so that he sent prominent scientific figures who were known for their independence from power messages impersonated by the pure soul to reveal what they might have of rallying around him and supporting his revolution, especially those that had an impact on Muslim public opinion.
For example, al-Mansur sent a fake letter to the leader of the Mu’tazila movement in Basra, Amr ibn Ubayd (d. 144 AH/762 CE), to test the extent of his loyalty to the pure soul, and when he handed him the letter, he looked at it and realized the scheming behind it, so he returned the message to the Prophet and said to him: “Tell your friend: Let us sit in this shade and drink from this cold water until our time comes to us in health”, as narrated by Ibn Qutayba al-Dinuri (d. 276 AH/889 CE) in his book Oyoun al-Akhbar. Ibn Obeid’s wish was fulfilled as he passed away in the year before the outbreak of the revolution in Medina!!
Similarly, al-Mansur also experienced the loyalty of one of the great Sunni scholars, Sulayman ibn Mahran al-Kufi, known as al-A’mash (d. 148 AH/766 CE), whom al-Dhahabi adds in al-Sir as “Imam Shaykh al-Islam, Shaykh al-Muqari’in wa al-Muhaddith.” But Al-Amash, who had political and security experience gained in the corridors of Umayyad power, did not fall into the trap that was set up for him, but confronted him with a pungent sense of humor for which he was known! Al-Tabari stated that “Abu Ja’far wrote to al-Amash a book on the tongue of Muhammad (= the pure soul) calling him to support him, and when he read it, he said: ‘We have told you, O Banu Hashim, so you love the thread! When the Prophet returned to Abu Ja’far and told him, he said: “I testify that these are the words of al-A’mash.”
It is indeed remarkable that the meticulous security effort made by Mansour to secretly reveal the latent forces that support the revolution, as he was very serious in employing his intelligence services and diversifying the facades that work under their banners to detect revolutionary cells, so he “put on Muhammad and Ibrahim meteorology” i.e. spies, and “Mansour was poking people who traded in countries and learned the news,” according to al-Baladheri.
One of the facts of this is that he sent one of his spies “to Medina to teach the knowledge of Muhammad (= pure soul), and he presented it in disguise, so he made him sell perfume and poke boys who sell perfume and ask for news, and he used to give [money] and give in his request and write news” to Al-Mansur while he was in Iraq. Al-Dhahabi also tells us – in Sir – that Al-Mansur employed in his pursuit of the revolutionaries his Mamluks disguised as Bedouin shepherds, “so he bought… He was kind to [at] the Arabs, so he used to give one of them the two eyes, and he divided them in his request (= pure soul) while he was hidden”!!
Rather, Al-Mansour employed women in his intelligence pursuits for the pure soul and his supporters, especially since they were able – unlike men – to enter the depths of homes, so the informant women entered the role safe and took them out with the most accurate news of their families. One of the strangest stories is that Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-Bayhaqi (d. circa 320 AH/933 CE) recounted in his Advantages and Disadvantages, that al-Mansur himself once conducted a security interrogation accompanied by torture with a slave girl of an Alawites, asking her for information about the leader of the revolution, the pure soul.
But the maidservant held on in the interrogation and “refused except ingratitude, and [al-Mansur] said to her, ‘Do you know the cupping woman?’ Her face blackened and changed! She said: Yes, Commander of the Faithful..! Say:… By God, when did I buy it with my money and livelihood running to it every month? I ordered her to enter your homes and hold you back and learn your news! Then he said, “Do you know the grocer?” She said: Yes. He said: He and God are speculators (= my investor) for five dinars. He told me that a nation (= servant) for you on such and such a day of the month of Maghrib prayer came to ask him for henna and paper, and he said to her: What are you doing with this? She said: Mohammed bin Abdullah was in some of his loss (= farms) in the area of Baqi as he enters the night, we wanted this to take women from him what they need when entering their husbands from the sunset, fell in her hand (= surprised) and acquiesced to all the information he wanted” Al-Mansour to reveal it!!
A broad
front Muhammad Al-Nasoul Al-Zakia worked to build a broad revolutionary front, and to accumulate the great momentum left by Imam Zayd, who was seen by the masses of the nation as his great revolutionary teacher, and a significant sector of those masses was dominated by feelings of grumbling and positions of massive peaceful protest against the authority, and it was trying to rationalize the political path by returning it to before the King Al-Adhd, and the resumption of the Rashidun approach to governance.
This feeling was strengthened by the fact that the revolution came at a time of huge transformations that the nation is going through through the transition from one country to another, and indeed the pure soul succeeded in taking allegiance to him from the central countries of importance, which he specified by saying in his sermon to the people of Medina: “I did not go out until I sold the people of Kufa, the people of Basra, Wasit, the island (= northern Iraq) and Mosul.” This sums up al-Ash’ari’s statement – in ‘Articles of the Islamists’ – that the pure soul is “a seller to him in the horizons”, which suggests the acceptance of the general public for the pure soul and their satisfaction with it and their pledge of allegiance to it.
In Medina, the cradle of the Islamic state, the pure soul was able to form a broad revolutionary front that included a number of houses of great weight in the Qurashi community. Al Zubair… Al-Omar” Ibn al-Khattab, mentions several “tribes of Arabs, including: Juhayna, Mezaina, Salim, Banu Bakr, Aslam and Ghaffar.”
It is remarkable that the pure soul succeeded in attracting the most prominent notables of the community of the people of the city, so that Ibn al-Tuqtaqi confirms that when he revolted, “the notables of the city followed him and only a small number left him.” This is confirmed by Imam Ibn Kathir by saying – in ‘The Beginning and the End’ – that when the pure soul announced his revolution in Medina, he preached to the people “and told them that he did not descend into a country unless they pledged allegiance to him to listen and obey, so the people of Medina pledged allegiance to him all but a little.”
As for the Iraqi wing of the revolution, al-Baladheri recalls that when its leader, Ibrahim bin Abdullah, announced the revolution, he prepared to fight al-Mansur’s army, “and came out in twenty or more”, all of them notables of the tribes of Basra. Al-Isfahani estimates – in ‘The Fighter of the Taliban’ – that “his Diwan (= the record of soldiers) has counted four thousand” fighters in Basra alone, and even Al-Baladheri doubles this number, saying that “Ibrahim had eleven thousand: seven hundred horsemen and the rest were men”!!
Most importantly, this revolution won the support of the vanguards of scholars, especially in the Prophet’s city, and in the words of Ibn Sa’d – in the ‘Great Classes’ – “a large group of jurists and scholars” participated. This reinforces the statement that the revolt of Zayd and his son Yahya and then the pure soul was not sectarian or sectarian revolutions, but rather a revolution of a large segment of the nation’s masses against the injustice of the Umayyads, and then what appeared to be an early deviation of Abbasid rule towards Umayyad practices, and that these revolutions are a continuation of the revolutions of Hussein, Ibn al-Zubayr and the jurists who came out with the powerful Umayyad leader Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Ash’ath al-Kindi (d. 85 AH/705 CE).
The historian Imam Ibn al-Atheer – in his book al-Kamil – listed the names of about thirty scholars and notables of the Prophet’s city community who were involved in the ranks of the pure soul revolution, as mentioned by other historians other names. We will suffice with examples of all this, focusing on the most prominent scholars who pledged allegiance to him and supported his revolution, so they went out with him either in the city itself or with his brother Ibrahim in Basra, and some of them participated in the preparations for the revolution but died just before it began.
The isnaad of
scholars 1- ‘Abd al-Wahid ibn Abi ‘Awn al-Dosi (d. 144 AH/762 CE), described by Imam Jamal al-Din al-Mazi (d. 742 AH/1341 CE) – in Tahdheeb al-Kamal fi Asma al-Rijal – as “one of the trustworthy companions of al-Zuhri (Imam Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (d. 124 AH/743 CE)… It was quoted by al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH/870 CE) and narrated by Ibn Majah (d. 273 AH/886 CE).” Ibn Saad mentioned – in the ‘Great Classes’ – his connection to the revolution of the pure soul said that he was close to his father Abdullah bin Hassan “Abu Jaafar accused him in the matter of Muhammad bin Abdullah that he knew his knowledge, so he fled from him” and remained disappeared until he died a year before the start of the revolution.
2- Muhammad ibn Ajlan al-Qurashi (d. 148 AH / 766 CE), translated by al-Dhahabi – in al-Sir – who said that he was “the true role model Imam and the rest of the flags… He was a mufti jurist, a true worshiper, a great figure, who had a great circle in the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” Then he mentioned that he revolted with the pure soul against Al-Mansur, and when the revolution failed, “they were the governor of Medina, Ja’far bin Suleiman (d. 174 AH / 790 AD) to flog him, and they said to him: May Allah fix you! If you saw al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110 AH/728 CE) doing something like this, would you hit him?! He said, “No! It was said: Ibn Ajlan is among the people of Medina like Hassan in the people of Basra! It was said: They cut off his hand until they spoke to him, and people crowded at his door, he said: He pardoned him”!!
3- The modern jurist Abdullah bin Yazid bin Hormuz (d. 148 AH / 766 AD), who was a sheikh of Imam Malik bin Anas, and al-Tabari mentions that he prepared himself for fighting despite his old age, so he was asked about that and said: “I have learned my old age, but the ignorant sees me and follows my example”!! Al-Tabari narrates with his support to Imam Malik bin Anas that he used to say: “I used to come to Ibn Hormuz and he ordered the maidservant to close the door and loosen the jackets, then he mentioned [Salah] the first of this nation, and then he cried until his beard was subdued! He said: Then he went out with Muhammad, “the pure soul!!
4- Imam Abu Hanifa al-Nu’man (d. 150 AH / 768 AD), the author of the well-known doctrine, and was one of the most important supporters of the revolution with money and fatwa for the revolution of Zaid bin Ali. Imam al-Zamakhshari (d. 538 AH/1143 CE) says in his commentary on al-Kashaf: “Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) secretly issued a fatwa stating that it was obligatory to support Zayd ibn ‘Ali. He carried the money to him and went out with him against the overcomer thief called the Imam and the Caliph.” It seems that Zayd’s death did not make Abu Hanifa give up his revolutionary inheritance, as al-Zamakhshari also recounts that “a woman said to him, ‘I told my son to go out with Ibrahim and Muhammad, my son Abdullah bin al-Hassan, until he was killed!’ He said, “I wish I were in your son’s place!”
Shahrastani says in al-Mulal wa al-Nahl: “Abu Hanifa was… On his pledge of allegiance (= pure soul) and among his Shiites, until the matter was raised to al-Mansur and he imprisoned him forever until he died in custody.” Some believe that the death of Abu Hanifa was not natural because of this revolutionary position, Imam Al-Suyuti narrates – in the ‘History of the Caliphs’ – that Al-Mansur may have “killed him with poison because he issued a fatwa to break with him”!!
5. ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Ja’far al-Ansari (d. 153 AH/771 CE), whom al-Dhahabi describes in al-Sir as “the updated Imam of trust.” Al-Tabari tells us that when the pure soul distributed responsibilities among the men of his revolution, “Abdul Hamid bin Jaafar gave birth to the spear, and said: “Enough for it, so he carried it and then relieved him of it, so he relieved him.”
6- The modern jurist Abu Bakr Abdullah bin Abi Sabra (d. 162 AH/780 CE), whom al-Dhahabi described – in al-Sir – as “the great jurist and judge of Iraq… He was the mufti of the people of the city.” This imam was a worker for Al-Mansur to collect zakat money, but when the pure soul revolted in Medina, he joined him, and then he “paid him what money he had with him (= zakat), and said: Use him at your command! When Muhammad was killed, Abu Bakr was told, “Run! He said, “He is not like me to escape, so he took a prisoner and was thrown into the city’s prison” until he was later released, according to al-Baladheri.
7- Imam Abdullah bin Ja’far bin Al-Maswar Al-Zuhri (d. 170 AH / 787 AD), whose discipleship on the pure soul we have already mentioned, and the historian Ibn Saad tells us that “he was a scholar of Maghazi and fatwa, and Abdullah bin Ja’far was one of the trustworthy Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan (= pure soul), and he knew his knowledge. When Muhammad bin Abdullah went out, he went out with him,” and he appointed him supervisor of the “Diwan of Giving,” i.e. Minister of Finance in the revolutionary government, according to Ibn al-Atheer.
Ibn Saad adds that Ibn al-Maswar was the most important element of the network of informants who relied on them pure soul in the face of the diligent security monitoring that Mansur managed against him with high intensity and efficiency, so he was “if he entered the city in disguise, he came to go down in the house of Abdullah bin Jaafar, and Abdullah becomes sitting down to the princes and hears their words and news with them and what they are going through from the remembrance of Muhammad bin Abdullah and the guidance of those who went in his request [to arrest him], Abdullah goes and tells Muhammad that All of it.. When Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah was killed, [‘Abdullah ibn Ja’far] disappeared, and he remained in hiding until he was entrusted with a believer.”
8- The Imam of Dar al-Hijrah Malik bin Anas (d. 179 AH / 795 AD), the author of the well-known doctrine, al-Tabari reports that “Malik bin Anas asked a question to go out with Muhammad (= the pure soul), and he was told: We have allegiance to Abu Ja’far [al-Mansur]! He said, “But they pledge allegiance to those who are under duress, and not every coercer has an oath, so the people rushed to Muhammad and obligated the owner of his house.”
Because of Malik’s pro-revolutionary stance, the governor of Medina arrested him and ordered him to be beaten until his shoulder was dislocated and he was carried unconscious, but he refused to back down from his position and said in this his statement recorded in history that the scholars must oppose the authority if it deviates: “I was beaten while Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib (d. 93 AH/703 CE), Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir (d. 130 AH/749 CE), and Rabi’ah [ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman (d. 136 AH/754 CE)] were beaten,” according to al-Dhahabi in Tareekh al-Islam.
Mu’tazili
participation As for the position of the Mu’tazila current – emerging at the time – of the revolution of the pure soul, it can be said that they settled their opinion – after the failure of the majority of previous revolutions against the Umayyads – to reject the revolution only after making sure that the preparation of the equipment that guarantees success and gives the preponderance of the belief of victory, and the likelihood of achieving interest over spoiler. The Mu’tazila sheikh al-Qadi ‘Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad al-Hamadhani (d. 415 AH/1025 CE) says in his book Confirming the Evidence of Prophethood:
“What is permissible for a Muslim to evacuate the imams of misguidance and the rulers of injustice if he finds helpers, and he thinks that he will be able to prevent them from injustice, as did al-Hasan and al-Husayn [the sons of Ali ibn Abi Talib], as the reciters did when they set up Ibn al-Ash’ath in the departure from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (d. 86 AH/706 CE), as the people of Medina did in Waqa’at al-Hurra, as the people of Mecca did with Ibn al-Zubayr when Mu’awiyah died (Ibn Abi Sufyan (d. 60 AH/681 CE), and as he did. Umar ibn Abd al-‘Aziz (d. 101 AH/720 CE), as did Yazid ibn al-Walid (ibn Abd al-Malik al-Umayyad (d. 126 AH/744 CE), in what they denied from the evil “to the rulers of their times.”
However, the conservative attitude towards the revolutions, some historical accounts indicate that they supported assigning the position of caliph to the pure soul even before the fall of the Umayyad dynasty, and it has already been said that al-Tabari explained al-Mansur’s preoccupation – when he assumed the caliphate – with the subject of the pure soul by saying that “Abu Ja’far had a contract for him [allegiance] in Mecca among people from the Mu’tazila.”
However, it seems that this pledge of allegiance was not agreed upon among the leaders of the Mu’tazilites, as their imam Wasel ibn Ata (d. 131 AH/750 CE) saw the right of the pure soul to the caliphate by virtue of his competence and credibility, perhaps because of Wasil’s proximity to the Hashemites, especially Zaid bin Ali, who considers the pure soul an extension of his revolutionary line.
As for the second man in the leadership of the Mu’tazila Amr bin Obaid, his original position tended to neutrality, but it seems that he had an old relationship with Al-Mansur that affected his position and prevented him from supporting the pure self, but Shahrastani confirms that he is “Wali Al-Mansour and said his imamate.”
Al-Isfahani – in ‘The Fighter of the Taliban’ – provided us with a kind of “bailiff” of deliberations that took place between the leaders of the Mu’tazila to take an official position on the revolution of the pure soul, as it was mentioned that “Wasel bin Ata and Amr bin Obaid met in the house of Othman bin Abdul Rahman al-Makhzoumi (d. after 130 AH / 749 AD) from the people of Basra, and they remembered the injustice, and Amr bin Obaid said: Who does this matter from those who require it when he has family? Wasil said: It is done by Allah who became the best of this nation: Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Al-Hassan!
‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd said: I do not think that we should pledge allegiance, and we only stand with those whom we have experienced and whose biography we have known! Wasel said to him: By Allah, if there was nothing in Muhammad bin Abdullah that indicates his virtue, but his father Abdullah bin Al-Hasan – in his age, virtue and position (= status) – had seen him for this matter and presented it to himself, that would have been worth what we see for him, so how is Muhammad in himself and his virtue?!”
It seems that the opinion calling for the support of the pure soul in his revolution is the one that prevailed within the Mu’tazili movement, especially after the death of Amr bin Obaid, who preceded the announcement of the revolution by one year, and this explains Al-Mansour’s saying: “I did not go out on the Mu’tazila until Amr bin Obaid died”, according to the book ‘The Virtue of Mu’tazila Tabaqat al-Mu’tazila’ by the Mu’tazili historian Abu al-Qasim al-Balkhi (d. 319 AH / 931 AD).
The historical sources of the Mu’tazila and others confirm their support for the revolution and their fight in its ranks when its events broke out, especially in their stronghold of Basra, where Ibrahim, the brother of the pure soul, went out. Among them was Bashir al-Rahhal (d. 145 AH/763 CE) and they killed Sabra in his hands, because his companions were defeated and he and the Mu’tazila and Bashir al-Rahhal stood up.” This is supported by al-Baladhri by saying: “Ibrahim and Sabr [with him] killed some Zaydis and they were killed.”
The involvement of the Mu’tazilites in the revolution of the pure soul is consistent even in the sources of their opponents who are familiar with the history of the differences, for this Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari confirms this by saying in his book Articles of the Islamists: “Then he came out after Muhammad bin Abdullah, his brother Ibrahim… In Basra, he prevailed over it, Ahvaz, Persia and most of the blacks (= agricultural areas in southern Iraq), and a person (= moved) from Basra in the Mu’tazila – and other Zaidis – wants to fight Al-Mansur… [So he fought his army] until he was killed, and the Mu’tazila were killed in his hands.”
We note here that al-Ash’ari made the participation of the Mu’tazila in the revolution part of the participation of the general Zaidi current in it, perhaps due to the special relationship between the two groups, which al-Maqrizi summarized – in his book ‘Sermons and Consideration’ – by saying that the Zaidis “agree with the Mu’tazilites in all their origins except in the matter of the imamate, and took the doctrine of Zaid bin Ali from Wasel bin Ataa.” He also admits the Mu’tazila’s support for the pure soul, the Shafi’i Sheikh in Yemen, Yahya bin Abi al-Khair al-Omrani (d. 558 AH / 1163 AD), by asserting – in his book ‘Al-Intisar fi Rada al-Mu’tazila al-Qadriyya al-Wicked’ – that the pure soul and his brothers when they revolted against the Abbasids “were followed by the great Mu’tazilites”!!
Urgent
announcement Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi (d. after 400 AH / 1010 AD) mentions – in his book ‘Insights and Ammunition’ – that “he saw al-Mansur – while he sees the sleeper – as if he had wrestled with Muhammad (= pure soul), and that Muhammad had struck him and sat on his chest, so he was most important and remained ignorant, and gathered the passers-by (= interpreters of the vision), so each stopped [from the expression of his vision], so he asked Abu al-Aina’s grandfather and he said: You overcome him and appear on him! He said: And how?! He said, “Because you were under him and the earth was yours, and he was above you and the sky was his, so I will walk away from him.”
No matter how accurate this narrative may be, its story offers a key to understanding these two characters fighting over one of the most dangerous pages of Islamic history. According to what this vision may indicate, the earth belongs to Al-Mansur with all its power, dominance and cunning, and heaven to the pure soul with all its moral, ideal and transcendence of the soul.
Therefore, when Al-Mansur used the means available to him to extinguish this fire, the pure soul refused to even kill the spies of his opponent, and he also opposed the assassination of Al-Mansur when his followers were with him during his visit to Mecca in 140 AH / 758 AD, and said to them: “No, by God! I will never kill him until I call on him, and they have violated that and what they agreed upon” in orchestrating the assassination, according to al-Tabari.
Al-Mansur played on the high moral sense of the pure soul in order to pressure him, and besiege him to drag him to the place and time appropriate for him and force him to appear hasty, so that he does not leave his movement any opportunity to make decisions free from the pressure of prosecution for him and his family, so Al-Mansur ordered in 144 AH / 762 AD his governor of Medina to deport the father of the pure soul and his brothers to him in Iraq, so he ordered his soldiers to do so and “carried the Hassan family in chains to Iraq … They were made in bearings and there is no hypothalamus under them,” according to al-Dhahabi. Ibn al-Tuqtaqi states that al-Mansur “took the sheikhs of Sadat from them (= Al Hassan)… He locked them up with him and they died in his custody” in Iraq.
وهكذا نجحت خطة المنصور بإحراج خصمه وإخراجه قبل نضج الظروف المُنْجِحة لثورته وخطته؛ فابن الطقطقي يحدثنا أن النفس الزكية لما “علِم بما جرى لوالده ولقومه ظهر بالمدينة وأظهر أمره” قبل الأوان المخطط له. وهو ما يؤكده أيضا وبصراحة الإمام ابن الجوزي (ت 597هـ/1201م) بقوله -في ‘المنتظم‘- إن المنصور “أحرَج محمدا حتى عزم على الظهور، فخرج قبل وقته الذي فارق عليه أخاه إبراهيم”!!
ورغم الرصد الأمني الكثيف والضاغط من المنصور؛ فقد استطاع النفس الزكية مباغتة السلطات العباسية في المدينة النبوية بظهوره المفاجئ في شوارعها في أول ليلة من رجب سنة 145هـ/763م، معلنا الثورة في جيش عديده “مئتان وخمسون رجلا”؛ وفقا للطبري الذي ينقل في الوقت نفسه عن أحد قادة الثورة أنه “اجتمع مع محمد جمعٌ لم أرَ مثله ولا أكثر منه، إني لأحسب أنا قد كنا مئة ألف”!!
Perhaps the huge disparity between the two estimates explains that the first was representing the number of soldiers of the revolution at the moment of its announcement, while the second number – if true and not exaggerated as usual in its example – provides an estimate of their number at the time of its collision with the Abbasid army, and between these two moments is the total age of this lightning revolutionary experience, as “Muhammad bin Abdullah stayed from time to time until he was killed two months and seventeen days,” which was sealed by his death in the middle of Ramadan of the same year, according to al-Tabari.
Revolutionary government During that short period, the pure soul is nicknamed “Commander of the Faithful” for pledging allegiance to the people to the caliphate, which is unprecedented in the history of the revolutions of the Alawite house, which is confirmed by Imam Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi by saying – in the ‘Message of the Bride’s Points in the Dates of the Caliphs’ – that “no one of the revolutionaries of Bani Ali, may God be pleased with him, was characterized by the caliphate – despite the large number of those in charge of them – except Muhammad bin Abdullah” and two came after him.
He also gave a political speech accusing the Abbasids of committing injustices and sins, for the thirteen years of their rule until that moment “the star of injustice, the book was deceived, the Sunnah was dead, and heresy was revived.” On the other hand, Al-Nasoul Al-Zakiya presented the summary of his political program, saying: “We call on you, O people, to judge by the Book of God, to work with what is in it, to deny evil, and to command the good”, according to one of his sermons, the text of which was quoted by Zaidi books and quoted by Dr. Radwan Al-Sayed in his book ‘The Pure Soul: The Book of Sir and the Rest of the Messages of Da’wah and Revolution’.
He also took a series of major decisions indicating readiness to report and speed up implementation, as if he had indeed become a sovereign state. His first decision was to release the detainees, “and the prison came… According to al-Tabari, who also says that he came at night “to break the prison and the house of money” after he took control of the security situation and arrested the most prominent Abbasid administration led by their governor Riah bin Othman bin Hayyan al-Marri (d. 145 AH/763 CE).
Imam al-Tabari also provided us with the names of the occupants of sovereign positions in this authority (the ministries of justice, interior, finance and defense), and he said that “when Muhammad took Medina, Uthman bin Muhammad bin Khalid bin al-Zubayr (d. 145 AH / 763 AD) used it, and Abdul Aziz bin Al-Muttalib bin Abdullah Al-Makhzoumi (d. 158 AH / 776 AD) ruled on it. (= Police) Abu al-Qalams ‘Uthman ibn ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (d. after 145 AH / 763 AD), and the Diwan of Giving ‘Abdullah ibn Ja’far ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Maswar ibn Mukhramah (d. 170 AH / 786 AD)… , [as] use… ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn al-Darawardi (d. 186 AH/802 CE) on weapons.”
He also appointed the pure soul as governor of the most important cities that pledged allegiance to him, and al-Tabari mentions some of them, saying: “Muhammad used al-Hasan ibn Muawiyah ibn Abdullah ibn Ja’far over Mecca… [Then] al-Qasim ibn Ishaq was used on Yemen, and Musa ibn ‘Abd-Allaah on al-Sham… He killed [the pure soul] before they reached their places of jurisdiction. Al-Baladheri also mentions that “Uthman bin Ibrahim al-Taymi went out to al-Yamamah (= today the Riyadh region and its vicinity in Saudi Arabia) to take her to Muhammad, but he did not reach it until he reached the killing of Muhammad.”
The news of the control of the pure soul on the city – within nine days – reached the Abbasid court in Iraq, and summarizes Ibn al-Tuqtaqi repercussions of this great event, saying: “Al-Mansur stood up, and the period lax until they wrote and corresponded, so each of them wrote to its owner a rare book numbered from the merits of books, in which he protested and went in protest every doctrine. In the end, [al-Mansur] assigned his nephew ‘Isa ibn Musa (d. 168 AH/784 CE) to fight him (= pure soul), so ‘Issa ibn Musa went to him in a dense army, and they met in a place close to Medina, and Askar al-Mansur prevailed, so Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah was killed and carried his head to al-Mansur, in [mid-Ramadan] in the year forty-five and one hundred.”
Thus, the page of the center of the revolution in the Hijaz was turned and quickly followed by the liquidation of its wing in Basra and its vicinity in southern Iraq when “Ibrahim’s companions and workers were taken and killed in the valleys and suburbs”, according to al-Baladheri.
Quick
setback It may be wrong to interpret what happened to the revolution of the pure soul with the weakness of his military experience, or that he was not aware of the nature of the field on which his battle occurred, which is the space of the Prophet’s city, he was one of the men of Imam Zayd’s army, where he practiced military work, but the supremacy of the ideal revolutionary spirit over the realistic military spirit of the pure soul and his followers is what made him take a lot of inappropriate decisions, he was pressured by his followers with his “Mahdist” symbolism. that have been overloaded, including their assumption that he will be in favor of victory regardless of the reasons!
In fact, the pure soul was aware of all this; when he preferred to go out in the city over other incubators, he was aware of its strategic problems, so Al-Baladheri tells us that the pure soul preached to his followers in the city on the morning of the day he controlled it, and he said: “O people of the city! By God, I did not go out in you to strengthen you, for others are dearer than you, and you are not the people of strength or thorn, but you are my family and the supporters of my grandfather, so I loved you myself, and God does not worship Egypt in it unless I have taken my prayers in it the pledge of allegiance to his family”!!
It was not only the pure soul who appreciated these problems, but it seems that they were the result of the discussions of his senior advisers, even from scholars who may be supposed to be the furthest people from these strategic norms in war planning and management. Al-Tabari tells us that the updated Imam ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Ja’far al-Ansari “said: ‘We have Muhammad (= the pure soul) one night… Muhammad said: Point to me in the exit and the shrine, he said: So they differed, and he came to me and said: Point to me, O Abu Ja’far, I said: Do you not know that you are the least of God’s countries of horses, food and weapons, and the weakest of men? He said: Yes, I said: Do you know that you are fighting the most manly, wealthy and weaponized country of God? He said: Yes, I said: The opinion is that you walk with those with you until you come to Egypt, so God does not want you to respond, so you fight the man (= Al-Mansour) with his weapon and his legs (= his horses) and his men and his money”!!
Also, according to the assessments of the situation presented to al-Mansur by his advisers, some of them ruled out that the pure soul would be removed from Medina as a country that “has no agriculture, udder, or extensive trade”, according to al-Omari’s book Maslak al-Absar, which confirms that the odds tended to declare the revolution from Basra, as when al-Mansur asked one of his senior advisers about his likelihood, he said:
“Did you have any of this knowledge? He said: No, but when you mentioned to me the exit of a man if he went out like him, no one was left behind, then I mentioned the country in which he came out (= Medina) and if he does not tolerate armies, I knew that he would ask other than his country, so I thought about Egypt and found it controlled, and in the Levant and Kufa and I found them as well, then I thought about Basra and found it empty and I was afraid for it;
The strange thing is that Basra was indeed the capital of the second revolution led by Ibrahim bin Abdullah, my brother of the pure soul, and such an estimate does not come out in this way except with prior knowledge of the military ability of the opponent, which negates the military naivety of the revolution camp with the testimony of their opponents in the Abbasid camp war council.
Sound military thought necessitated that Muhammad avoid direct confrontation until the appropriate military and political base was available, and if he decided to confront, he had to maintain the strategy of irregular warfare – or “guerrilla warfare” – as the previous and contemporary Kharijites organizations did to him, so that he could have an incubator central state such as Egypt, the Levant or the country of Yemen, which the pure soul was about to align with. Muhammad and covet him in themselves, because he was [intendent] to go to Yemen, and when they did he stayed and did not leave the city”!!
Missing discipline
It also seems that the formations of the pure soul army were not governed by the principle of military discipline, and there were those who mastered military thought and those who did not improve it, and it seems that this last part was besieging the leader of the revolution with bids and slogans that dissociate from the necessary military insight.
Although the measures of the revolution are at the heart of practical politics and the art of war, which are jurisprudential issues governed by the calculations of interest and the volatile data of the field, he responded to the loudest voice bidding on the military voice, perhaps for fear of dispersing the word, and this has affected some of his decisive war decisions in which he tended to be based on the “text”, although it is one of the resources of pure “ijtihad”.
For example, when the pure soul gathered his companions, “he consulted them in digging the trench of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and Jabir ibn Anas (d. after 144 AH / 762 AD), the head of the Salim [tribe], said to him: O Commander of the Faithful, we are your uncles and neighbors, and we have weapons and sheep (= horses), so do not trench the trench, for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) trenched his trench for what Allah knows best, and his trench did not improve the fighting of men (= infantry), and horses were not directed to us between the alleys, and those without whom the trench prevents them.” Ether.
There is no doubt that the opinion of the leader of the Salim tribe was more correct militarily, and it also seems that it was issued by those who are the most loyal people to the leader of the revolution and the most honest rally around him because of kinship according to the text, but this opinion faced opposition from some of the leaders of the revolution camp led by a man from Bani Shuja from the Juhayna tribe, this man addressed the pure soul, saying: “A trench, [lost] the trench of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and imitated it, and you want to leave the trail of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to your opinion! He said: “By God, O brave son, nothing is heavier for you and your companions than meeting them, and nothing is more dearer to us than their achievement (= fighting them)”!!
This comment of the pure soul confirms that he knows the goals of this bidding, and that it is nothing more than evading fighting and confrontation, and yet he said to his men: “We followed in the trench the trail of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so no one will turn me away from him, so I will not abandon him! He ordered it to be dug up, and he himself began to dig [the place] of the trench dug by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for the parties” in the Battle of the Trench in the year 5 AH / 627 CE.
It was natural that all the wings of this undisciplined military formation did not withstand the moment of intensification of the confrontation with the army of Al-Mansur led by his veteran nephew Isa bin Musa al-Abbasi (d. 168 AH / 784 AD), so Ibn al-Atheer tells us that when the battle heated up around the pure soul, he soon “dispersed most of his companions until he remained in three hundred men a little more, and he said to some of his companions: Today we are several people of Badr”!!
Thus, the remaining part of the battle took an ideal fedayeen dimension, not governed by the rules of military thought in the fight and flight, but led by the spirit of courage in courage and sacrifice, and it seems that the pure soul wanted to plan for himself a dignified end that leaves its impact on the imagination of the followers, and that end was the embodiment of one of the commandments of his father Abdullah, which addressed him with his brother Ibrahim; “If Abu Jaafar – meaning Al-Mansur – prevents you from living dignified, it does not prevent you from dying dignified”!!
It seems that this commandment did not leave the mind of the pure soul at the end of the battle, for “Muhammad had gathered the people, took the covenant on them, confined them so that they would not go out [of the city], and preached to them… He said to them: “The enemy of God and your enemy has descended (= a place near the city), and if the people have the right to do this matter for the sons of immigrants and supporters, that is, we have gathered you and taken the covenant on you, and your enemy is many, and victory is from God and the matter is in his hand, and it has seemed to me that I give you permission, so whoever of you loved to reside, and whoever loved to stay (= leave) will stay.”
As for the pure soul, he stood firm in the field in the face of the intense pressure of his enemies “and their patience… Until the age, and then he made people disperse from him, and he said: O sons of the free, to where? Twelve men were killed with his own hand,” he said, according to al-Baladheri. The call of the leader of the revolution was in vain in the dust of the battle, as it was the result of the option to flee that he allowed his fighters to raise the embarrassment of those who have no ability to bravery in combat, and therefore – as Ibn al-Atheer says – the supporters of the revolution escaped from the battlefield “came out a lot of world, and people came out of the people of the city with their offspring and their families to the symptoms (= districts) and mountains, and Muhammad remained in a small fragment” until he was killed by an unplanned future and with quite a few notables of the knights of his soldiers!!
I am genuinely amazed with your deep insights and stellar writing style. Your expertise clearly stands out in every piece you write. It’s obvious that you spend considerable time into researching your topics, and the results does not go unnoticed. Thanks for providing such detailed information. Continue the excellent job! https://rochellemaize.com
I’m truly impressed by your keen analysis and stellar ability to convey information. The knowledge you share shines through in every piece you write. It’s obvious that you invest a great deal of effort into understanding your topics, and that effort pays off. Thank you for sharing such detailed information. Keep on enlightening us! https://www.elevenviral.com
Top Pornstars Kayleigh Wanless Tools To Make Your Daily Lifethe One Top Pornstars Kayleigh Wanless Trick
Every Individual Should Learn Top Pornstars Kayleigh Wanless
This design is steller! You most certainly know how to keep a reader amused. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Great job. I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!
I recognize how Mantle 3D is tackling both speed and
quality in the tooling process.
I’m interested about how Mantle’s 3D technology handles
adjustments or iterations during the production phase.
Lowering production costs while preserving high standards
is a win-win for manufacturers.