The Conspiracy of Ibn al-Alqami the RafidiIn summary, the incident involves Ibn al-Alqami, who was the vizier to the Abbasid caliph al-Musta'sim. The caliph, like his father and grandfather before him, was a Sunni Muslim, but he was also lenient and lacked vigilance. This Rafidi vizier was plotting to overthrow the caliphate, exterminate the Sunnis, and establish a state following the Rafidi (Shi'a) creed. He exploited his position and the caliph's negligence to execute his conspiracies against the caliphate. His plot had three main stages:First Stage: Weakening the Army and Harassing the PeopleIbn al-Alqami worked to reduce the salaries of the Muslim army and weaken them. Ibn Kathir said: "The vizier Ibn al-Alqami strived to discharge the troops and remove their names from the registry. In the last days of al-Mustansir, the troops were nearly one hundred thousand fighters... He continued to reduce them until only ten thousand remained." [Al-Bidaya wa'l Nihaya: 13/202].
Second Stage: Correspondence with the TatarsIbn Kathir also wrote: "He then corresponded with the Tatars, enticing them to take over the land, making it easy for them, and disclosed the real situation to them, revealing the weakness of the troops." [Al-Bidaya wa'l Nihaya: 13/202].
Third Stage: Discouraging Resistance Against the TatarsHe discouraged the general public from fighting them [Minhaj as-Sunnah: 3/38]. He convinced the caliph and his entourage that the Tatar king wanted to make peace with them. He advised the caliph to meet with him and make peace on the condition that half of the tax revenues of Iraq would go to the Tatars, and the other half to the caliph. The caliph went to meet him, accompanied by seven hundred riders, including judges, scholars, emirs, and notable figures. Through this deceit, the caliph and those with him were killed without any effort from the Tatars. Ibn al-Alqami and other hypocrites, including some Rafidis, advised Hulagu not to reconcile with the caliph. Ibn al-Alqami said that if the peace was established on equal terms, it would only last for a year or two, after which things would return to what they were before. They convinced him to kill the caliph, and it is said that it was Ibn al-Alqami and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi who advised killing him. [Ibn Kathir/ Al-Bidaya wa'l Nihaya: (13/201)].Afterwards, they turned on the city and killed everyone they could, including men, women, children, the elderly, and the young. No one survived except the Dhimmis (Jews and Christians) and those who sought refuge with them or in the house of the vizier, Ibn al-Alqami the Rafidi. [Al-Bidaya wa'l Nihaya: 13/201-202].It is said that they killed around a few ten thousand people, if not more or less. There has never been a massacre in Islam like the one the infidel Tatars carried out. They killed the Hashemites and captured the women from among the Abbasids and others. Can one who aligns with the family of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) facilitate their killing, capture, and the killing of other Muslims? [Minhaj as-Sunnah: 3/38].The preachers, imams, and Qur'an reciters were killed, and the mosques, congregations, and Friday prayers were suspended for months in Baghdad. [Al-Bidaya wa'l Nihaya: 13/203].
The aim of Ibn al-Alqami was "to completely eradicate Sunnism, spread the Rafidi heresy, suspend the mosques and religious schools, and establish a great school for the Rafidis to propagate their doctrine." However, Allah did not enable him to achieve this. Instead, his blessings were taken away, his life was cut short shortly after the incident, and he was followed by his son. [Al-Bidaya wa'l Nihaya: 13/202-203].Reflect on this major event and the enormous betrayal. Consider the leniency of some Sunnis, which led to their complacency and their approach towards their worst enemies, while noting the intense hatred and malice held by these Rafidis against the Sunnis. Ibn al-Alqami had been the vizier to al-Musta'sim for fourteen years, and he had been granted status and prestige that no other vizier had. Yet this tolerance and respect did not rid him of the hatred he held towards the Sunnis. Later Rafidis have unveiled the mask from their hearts and revealed their hidden malice, viewing the crime of Ibn al-Alqami and Nasir al-Tusi in killing Muslims as one of their great virtues.Khomeini, in praising what Nasir al-Tusi achieved, said: "… People (i.e., his followers) feel the loss… with the death of Khawaja Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and others like him who provided invaluable services to Islam." [Islamic Government, p. 128].The services he refers to were revealed earlier by Khwansari, who said in his biography of Nasir al-Tusi: "Among his well-known deeds was being the vizier to the mighty sultan Hulagu Khan, coming in his convoy with complete preparation to Baghdad to guide the people and reform the land by eliminating the Abbasid rule, and causing widespread killing of the followers of those tyrants to the extent that rivers ran with their impure blood into the waters of the Tigris, which eventually led to hellfire." [Rawdat al-Jannat: 6/300-301].
They consider his involvement in the mass killing of Muslims as one of his greatest virtues. They regard this killing as a way to guide people and reform the land, and they consider the fate of the Muslims who were martyred in this "catastrophe" as going to hellfire. This implies that Hulagu, the pagan, whom they describe as divinely supported, and his soldiers are, in their view, among the inhabitants of Paradise because they satisfied the rage of these Rafidis against Muslims. Observe this immense hatred—killing Muslims has become one of their dearest wishes, and disbelievers are closer to them than the Muslim Ummah.
>>17282373>Afterwards, they turned on the city and killed everyone they could, including men, women, children, the elderly, and the young. No one survived except the Dhimmis (Jews and Christians) and those who sought refuge with them or in the house of the vizier, Ibn al-Alqami the Rafidikek, same thing happened when the Mongols sacked Baghdad.Arabs really were the biggest bucks of the middle ages.It does validate Islam, because there is no way these losers could have conquered anything without divine intervention.
By the way; the 'Ubaydi vizier (Shawar) intended to do the same thing with the Crusaders, but Saladin was on his guard against him.I recommend reading the book "The Treachery of the Shia and Its Impact on the Defeats of the Islamic Ummah" for further reading.
And today shia are fighting Israel and America while Sunni kiss their feet in reverence
>>17282368>dude we only lost to the mongols because *Insert fake and gay cope*Why are arabs so delusional?
>>17282376>However, Allah did not enable him to achieve thiswhy did allah allow Khwarezmia to be conquered and Baghdad sacked?
>>17282368I blame jews for turning islam away from its good purpose. I don't yet know when exactly they did it but I will find out eventually.
>>17282397The Mongols had iron chariots
>>17282383>kek, same thing happened when the Mongols sacked Baghdad.he is talking about that retard!
>>17282368There were tons of Sunnis following Hulagu.
>>17282410Yeah I realized that as the thread developed lol, I just didn't figure anybody gave a shit about the Caliphs in the 13th century.
>>17282368>muslims after losing >NOOO IT WAS A CONSPIRACY WE WOULD HAVE TOTALLY WONno wonder muslims suck at war in the modern era.
>>17282368>al-Musta'simisn't this the dude who claimed the entire "ummah™" would come riding to his defense but literally no one showed up
>>17282397He didnt just let Baghdad be sacked, he allowed the "Dhimmi" to find refuge in their homes just like he did the Jews when he punished the Egyptians.The sack of Baghdad was when God abandoned the Arabs and turned his attention back to Europe.
>>17282410shiites will always be a knife in the muslim back
>Al-Musta'sim's reply to Hulegu's letter called the Mongol leader young and ignorant, and presented himself as able to summon armies from all of Islam. Accompanied by disrespectful behaviour towards Hulegu's envoys, who were exposed to taunting and mockery from mobs on Baghdad's streets, this was just antagonistic bombast: the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt was hostile towards the caliph, while the Ayyubid minor rulers in Syria were focusing on their own survival.[24] A further exchange of letters brought no progress save the caliph's concession of a small amount of tribute—al-Alqami had argued for sending large amounts, but the dawatdar argued that al-Alqami was trying to empty the treasury and win Hulegu's favour>Losing patience, Hulegu consulted his advisors on the practicalities of attacking Baghdad. The astronomer Husam al-Din prophesied doom, stating that all rulers who had attacked Baghdad had afterwards lost their kingdom. Hulegu then turned to the polymath Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, who simply replied that none of these disasters would happen, and that Hulegu would rule in place of the caliphSounds to me the shia were the realist party who wanted to not fight a futile fight while the Sunnis were huffing muh god's chosen copium
>>17282433>Hulegu then turned to the polymath Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, who simply replied that none of these disasters would happenNow thats some professional decision making
>>17282429>alawites>live in coastal syria>The hecking mongols wouldn't have been able to sack Baghdad if it weren't for these guysbro....
>>17282429indeed
>>17282433>The astronomer Husam al-Dinhow did he and the other guys who claimed the world would end if Hulagu attacked Baghdad cope when the world didn't end after Baghdad was sacked and the Caliph killed?
>>17282433>Sounds to me the shia were the realist party who wanted to not fight a futile fight while the Sunnis were huffing muh god's chosen copiumShias lost the initial fight and were suppressed afterwards so of course they would be more realistic than the Sunnis who were on top for a couple of centuries. Of course this was the era where the Seljuks were defeated by the infidel Qara Khitai, the Levant conquered by crusaders, and then the Mongols destroying the most power muslim state at the time so keeping that attitude was delusional.
>>17282440>>alawitesthey are shiites and they helped the crusadersand he is talking about all shits in generalbut this was a replay to some debate about shiites backthenthe guy (ibn taymia) is well known as anti-shiites and all esoteric hereticsso go read history before you talk shitthese shiite niggers literally belive ali is like jesus(god in flesh)
>>17282453>they are shiites and they helped the crusadersyeah some irrelevant mountain herders who were only under the control of a state during the ottoman era and only became relevant in french syria were the reason the crusades were successful. It definitely wasn't because the muslim emirates allied with crusaders to attack and ward off attacks from other muslim emirates until one guy emerged to conquer all the syrian emirates. Keep huffing that copium though.
>>17282453>so go read historyhe says while posting some cleric
>>17282368>Abbasid caliph al-Musta'sim. The caliph, like his father and grandfather before him, was a Sunni Muslim,>Ibn al-Alqami, who was the vizier So he was a "Sunni" but he had a Shia vizier? Which one is it?Sounds like more convenient Arab and Salafist talking points.>establish a state following the Rafidi (Shi'a) creed.Which one?
>>17282512it's just sunni cope. They lay the blame on one guy instead of just admitting the caliphate fucked up
>>17282526>it's just sunni cope. They lay the blame on one guy instead of just admitting the caliphate fucked upexapt it always the shitso, shut your hole!
>>17282537case in point.
>>17282451Abbasid lost cause don't have any power. Abbasid caliph only has power on his Baghdad city state. Real power is in Egypt with fatimid then ayyubid then the mamluk. Egypt is leader of Muslim world traditionally and still it's today with center of Islamic scholarship with Al Azhar university. That's why Egypt become leader of the Arab and Muslim in 20 century vs Israel.
>>17282798english. Do you speak it?
I genuinely cannot learn Arab history because the naming schemes piss me off
