Ashrat al-Saah - al-Wabil - Yusuf al-Wabil - (124)

Ashrat al-Saah - al-WabilYusuf al-Wabil

Ibn Hajar said: “Access between them and the Muslims remained closed until it was gradually opened up. Many of them were taken captive, and rulers vied with one another to acquire them because of their strength and valor. Eventually, most of al-Mu‘tasim’s army consisted of them. The Turks then gained control of the government and killed his son al-Mutawakkil, followed by al-Mutawakkil’s sons one after another, until the Daylamites also gained a foothold in the realm. The Samanid rulers were likewise Turks, and they ruled the Persian lands. The house of Sabuktakīn then gained control of those kingdoms, followed by the house of Seljuq, whose realm extended into Iraq, Syria, and the Byzantine lands. Their remaining followers in Syria were the Zangid dynasty, whose followers were the house of Ayyūb. The Ayyubids likewise recruited large numbers of Turks, who then wrested rule from them throughout Egypt, Syria, and the Hejaz.

“In the fifth century AH, the Ghuzz rose against the house of Seljuq, ravaging the lands and massacring their inhabitants.

“Then came the greatest catastrophe with the Tartars (Tatars). Genghis Khan emerged after 600 AH, and through them the world was set ablaze—especially the East in its entirety—until no land there remained untouched by their evil. Then came the destruction of Baghdad and the killing of the caliph

= I have also found that al-Albānī cited the hadith: “Leave the Abyssinians alone so long as they leave you alone, and leave the Turks alone so long as they leave you alone.” Regarding its chain of transmission, he said: “This chain is acceptable as corroborative evidence; all its narrators are trustworthy except this Abū Sakīna. Al-Hāfiz said in *al-Taqrīb*: ‘It is said that his name was Alam, and there is disagreement as to whether he was a Companion.’” Al-Albānī then said: “If his status as a Companion is not established, he is a Tābi‘ī whose reliability is unknown. Three narrators transmitted from him, so the hadith constitutes acceptable corroborative evidence.” See *Silsilat al-Ahādīth al-Sahīha*, vol. 2, p. 416, hadith no. 772. Perhaps by describing it as “fabricated,” al-Albānī meant only the addition at the end of the hadith: “The first to wrest from my community its dominion and what Allah has granted it will be the descendants of Qantūrā.” As will be seen, al-Hāfiz Ibn Hajar cited this addition as evidence, so he regarded it as established. Allah knows best.

قال ابن حجر: "كان ما بينهم وبين المسلمين مسدودًا إلى أن فُتح ذلك شيئًا بعد شيءٍ، وكَثُرَ السبي منهم، وتنافس الملوك فيهم؛ لما يتَّصفون به من الشدة والبأس، حتّى كان أكثر عسكر المعتصم منهم، ثمّ غلب الأتراك على الملك، فقتلوا ابنَه المتوكل، ثمّ أولاده واحدًا بعد واحد، إلى أن خالط المملكة الديلم، ثمّ كان الملوك السَّامانية من التُّرك أيضًا، فملكوا بلاد العجم، ثمّ غلب على تلك الممالك آل سبكتكين، ثمّ آل سلجوق، وامتدت مملكتهم إلى العراق والشام والروم، ثمّ كان بقايا أتباعهم بالشام - وهم آل زنكي -، وأتباع هؤلاء - وهم بيت أيوب -، واستكثر هؤلاء أيضًا من الترك، فغلبوهم على المملكة بالديار المصرية والشامية والحجازية. وخرج على آل سلجوق في المئة الخامسة الغزُّ، فخربو"لبلاد، وفتكوا في العباد. ثمّ جاءت الطامة الكبرى بالططر (التتار)، فكان خروج جنكز خان بعد الست مئة، فأُسعِرَت بهم الدُّنيا نارًا، خصوصًا المشرق بأسره، حتّى لم يبق بلدٌ منه حتّى دخله شرُّهُم، ثمّ كان خرابُ بغداد وقتل الخليفة

= وقد وجدتُ أن الألباني قد استشهد بحديث: "دعوا الحبشة ما ودعوكم، واتركوا الترك ما تركوكم"، وقال في سنده: "هذا إسناد لا بأس به في الشواهد، رجاله كلهم ثقات. غير أبي سكينة هذا؛ قال الحافظ في "التقريب": "قيل: اسمه علم، مختلف في صحبته". قلت (أي: الألباني): إذا لم تثبت صحبته؛ فهو تابعيٌّ مستور، روى عنه ثلاثة، فالحديث شاهد حسن". انظر: "سلسلة الأحاديث الصحيحة" (م ٢/ ٤١٦/ ح٧٧٢). ولعلّ الألباني يريد بقوله: "موضوع"؛ أي: الزيادة الّتي في نهاية الحديث، وهي قوله: "أول من يسلب أمتي ملكهم وما خولهم الله بنو قنطوراء"، وسيأتي أن الحافظ ابن حجر استشهد بها، فهي ثابتة عنده، والله أعلم.