Short Description
In spite of this brilliant victory, Tooraan Shaah was not fit for the events that were befalling the Ummah at that time.
In spite of this brilliant victory, Tooraan Shaah was not fit for the events that were befalling the Ummah at that time. He was wanton, bad-mannered and ignorant of policy and rule. The haughtiness because of the victory he achieved over Louis IX of France made him too blind to see the merits of those who were around him. He started to be ungrateful to his mother-in-law, Shajarat Ad-Durr, and accused her of concealing the wealth of his father, and demanded it from her and threatened to punish her severely so much that she felt afraid of him.
He did not keep her favor of preserving the kingship for him and managing the affairs well after the death of his father until he came and took over. On the other hand, he began to be ungrateful to the major leaders of Mamluks, especially Faaris Ad-Deen Aqtai and Rukn Ad-Deen Baybars, and did not remember their favor in the wonderful victory over the Crusaders in the Battle of Mansoura. He started to underestimate them and reduce their responsibility, in favor of the men who came with him from the Kiva Fortress. It seemed clear to all that he was going to make a wide-ranging process of changes in the authority in Egypt.
All this took place only within the first three months after his arrival in Egypt, in the wake of the Battle of Farskor.
Shajarat Ad-Durr feared for herself, and talked about that in private to the Bahri Mamluks, especially Faaris Ad-Deen Aqtai and Rukn Ad-Deen Baybars. The Bahri Mamluks respected her greatly, due to her being the wife of their master, King As-Saalih Ayyoob, May Allah Have mercy upon him. This relation of mastership was so strong that it remained effective even after the death of the master. At the same time, the Bahri Mamluks had the same doubts. In this way, they devised their plan that they should get rid of Tooraan Shaah quickly before he would get rid of them.
In fact, the Mamluks, in general, took killing lightly. They used to kill easily even "by suspicion". If they had a doubt that somebody had "the intention" to betray, it was a sufficient justification for them to kill him. I do not understand how this was a general characteristic of the Mamluks during their lifetime; and it remained with them throughout the history of the Mamluk State. How many of their emirs, enemies and even great men were killed only because of doubt about their intentions! This may go back to the harsh military education they used to receive, which developed in them a relative cruelty and severity, and lack of pliability, since they favored to settle all their matters with the sword they used to carry from their early childhood. However, we do not understand how the Mamluks were brought up on the religious and juristic teachings. I do not know which juristic pretext could justify killing a man, even if it is almost certain that he would oust you or would probably kill you.
The point is that at this time crowded with conspiracies and plots, this kind of killing was not condemned; on the contrary, the killer would be filled with pride before people, that he had killed his enemy, and even he would mount to the throne, with his head raised, feeling no compunction, as if this flowing blood was of no significance in the sight of Allah the Almighty or in the sight of the people.
Of course, I do not argue here in defense of Tooraan Shaah or any other murdered person. The murdered person might be wicked, evil and hateful. But the punishments in Islam come by certain measures, determined, not by the people, but by the Lord of the heavens and the earth. The thief, even though an evil hateful criminal, should not be killed only because of theft, but his hand should be cut off; and the unmarried adulterer, even though committing a shameful crime and a hideous felony, should not be killed, but he should be lashed rather than stoned to death; and so on.
I do not think that the doubts some Mamluks had about each other could be sufficient to justify killing, under Sharee‘ah. They could be a justification, under Sharee‘ah, for ousting, objection or putting in prison, but not for killing.
To Continue.....
Comments
Send your comment