In its propaganda campaign, ISIS lauds much praise on Sultan Salahuddin and the Khalifah Haroon Rashid. Salahuddin was a Kurd of the Shafi’i Math-hab and also one who propagated the Ash’ari Aqeedah. Khalifah Haroon Rashid was a Hanafi. The chief Qaadhi of his Islamic empire was Imaam Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh), the most senior Student of Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh). Yet, Hanafis and Ash’aris are deviants or even Kaafirs according to the Wahhaabi doctrine of ISIS. But without these illustrious personalities, there is no Islamic history.
[An article on Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s mass-takfeer, brutal massacres and atrocities will be forthcoming soon, based on Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s own sources and direct eye-witness testimonies, which will shed much light on the Father-Figure and “Mujaddid” of ALL Salafi sects today, and which will also make abundantly clear that Salafi groups such as ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, etc. today are the most accurate and faithful adherents to the original teachings of Salafism].
Sultan Salahuddin Ayyubi (Rahmatullah alayh) was no paper puppet ‘caliph’ such as Mr. Simon, the U.S. installed ‘caliph’ of ISIS. Despite being the true ruler of the Islamic Empire, Sultan Salahuddin remained a faithful and obedient vassal of the Abbaasi Khalifah of Baghdad. It was Sultan Salahuddin who had reinstated the name of the Abbaasi Khalifah in the Jumuah Khutbah in all the lands under his sway. He was a staunch Hanafi and abided by the Shariah Salahuddin is famed for his gentleness and kind-heartedness. He did not massacre the kuffaar who had brutally massacred the Muslim population in every place conquered by the Crusaders.
The Sultan’s Uswah Hasanah – conduct of moral excellence – is beautifully portrayed in his stance on the Conquest of Jerusalem where the Christian crusading savages had perpetrated the most horrendous atrocities on the Muslim population when they (the barbaric crusaders) had conquered the city from the Muslims some decades ago.
The following account in “A Short History of the Saracens”, testifies to the Islamic humanity of Sultan Salahuddin:
“The Sultan then turned his attention towards Jerusalem, which contained within its walls over sixty thousand (Christian) soldiers, besides an immense civil population. On approaching the city he sent for the principal inhabitants and spoke to them in the following terms—“I know, as you do, that Jerusalem is a holy place. I do not wish to profane it by the effusion of blood; abandon your ramparts, and I shall give you a part of my treasures and as much land as you can cultivate.”
With characteristic fanaticism the Crusaders refused this generous and humane offer. Irritated by their refusal, Saladin (Sultan Salahussin) vowed he would avenge on the city the butchery committed by the comrades and soldiers of Godfrey de Bouillon. After the siege had lasted a while, the Crusaders lost heart, and appealed for mercy “in the name of the common Father of mankind.”
The Sultan’s kindness of heart conquered his desire for punishment. The Greeks and Syrian Christians within Jerusalem received permission to abide in the Sultan’s dominions in the full enjoyment of their civil rights, and the Franks and Latins who wished to settle in Palestine as subjects of the Sultan were permitted to do so.
All the combatants within the city were to leave with their women and children within forty days, under the safe-conduct of the Sultan’s soldiers and betake themselves either to Tyre or Tripoli. Their ransom was fixed at ten Syrian dinars for each man, five for each woman, and one for each child. On failure to pay the stipulated ransom, they were to remain in bondage. But this was a mere nominal provision. The Sultan himself paid the ransom for ten thousand people, whilst his brother Saif uddin (Saif ud-din Abu Bakr, surnamed al-Malik al-Aadil.) (the Saphadin of the Christians) released seven thousand more. Several thousand were dismissed by Saladin’s clemency without any ransom. The clergy and the people carried away all their treasures and valuables without the smallest molestation.
Several Christians were seen carrying on their shoulders their feeble and aged parents or friends. Touched by the spectacle, the Sultan distributed a goodly sum to them in charity, and even provided them with mules to carry their burdens. When Sybilla, the Queen of Jerusalem, accompanied by the principal matrons and knights, took leave of him, he respected her unhappiness, and spoke to her with the utmost tenderness. She was followed by a number of weeping women, carrying their children in their arms. Several of them approached the Sultan and addressed him as follows-—
“You see us on foot, the wives, mothers, and daughters of warriors who are your prisoners; we are quitting for ever this country; they aided us in our lives, in losing them we lose our last hope; if you will give them to us, they can alleviate our miseries and we shall not be without support on earth.”
Saladin, touched by their prayers, at once restored to the mothers their sons, to the wives their husbands, and promised to treat whoever remained in his power with kindness. He distributed liberal alms among the orphans and widows, and allowed the Knights Hospitallers, although they had been in arms against him, to continue their work of tending the sick and wounded and looking after the Christian pilgrims.
Saladin’s humanity was in striking contrast with the brutality of the nearest Christian prince. “Many of the Christians who left Jerusalem,” says Mills, “went to Antioch, but Bohemond not only denied them hospitality, but even stripped them. They marched into the Saracenian (Muslim) country, and were well received.”
Michaud gives some striking details of Christian inhumanity to the (Christian) exiles from Jerusalem. Repulsed by their brethren of the East, they wandered miserably about Syria, many dying of grief and hunger. Tripoli (which was still in Christian hands) shut its gates against them, and “one woman, urged by despair, cast her infant into the sea, cursing the Christians who refused them succour.”
Out of respect for the feelings of the vanquished, the Sultan had abstained from entering the city until all the Crusaders had left. On Friday, the 27th of Rajab, attended by the princes and lords and the dignitaries of the empire who had arrived in camp to congratulate him on his victory, he entered Jerusalem. The ravages of war were repaired on all sides, the mosques and colleges that had been demolished by the Franks were either restored or rebuilt, and a liberal and wise administration was introduced in the government of the country, quite different from the rude tyranny of the Crusaders. ……..”[By Hazrat Maulana Ahmad Sadeq Desai]