“Do They Seek Honour Among Them?”… The Patterns of Decline from the Taifa Kings to Our Contemporary Reality

Dr Al-Haytham Al-Kindi Yousif

The Almighty says in verse 109 of Surah Yusuf:

“Have they not travelled through the land and seen how those before them ended?”

And in verse 111 of the same surah:

“Indeed, in their stories there is a lesson for those of understanding.”

These verses urge reflection upon the events and trajectories of the past, and the drawing of lessons from them, so that we do not fall into the same failures. As Winston Churchill famously observed: “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” Whoever does not take heed has only themselves to blame.

Islamic history offers numerous accounts demonstrating that alliances with an opportunistic outsider against a rival brother often end in the collapse of all parties beneath the very power invited in for protection or advantage.

One of the clearest manifestations of this pattern appears in the era of the Taifa kingdoms in al-Andalus. A once-unified state fragmented into weak principalities, whose rulers competed for the favour of the King of Castile, Alfonso VI, paying tribute in exchange for his support against neighbouring Muslim rulers. The result was predictable: Alfonso was satisfied with none of them, draining their wealth and strength until their cities fell one after another.

The same pattern reappeared during the Crusades, when certain local forces in the Levant allied with the Crusaders against other Muslim powers seeking unity. History records that such alliances did not prevent their downfall; rather, they hastened it, as they ultimately fell before the advances led by Nur ad-Din Zangi and Saladin.

These historical patterns are not random occurrences; they reflect consistent laws of cause and effect—much like the fixed principles we teach in mathematics and other sciences.

When a state abandons its natural affiliations—geographical, cultural, and national—and aligns itself with external powers or foreign agendas, it enters a losing gamble for three principal reasons:

Loss of its base: the state becomes isolated from its regional and cultural environment.

Compromised sovereignty: its survival becomes dependent on external powers that act solely in their own interests and will abandon it when circumstances change.

Resource depletion: wealth is diverted into proxy conflicts instead of development, fuelling internal discontent and weakening the state from within.

(One might well ask: where do these three conditions manifest today?)

In our contemporary reality, we witness determined efforts to reshape the region through alliances that transcend geographical and historical constants. Policies pursued by certain regional actors—such as United Arab Emirates—in intervening in the affairs of countries like Sudan, Syria, Libya, and Yemen—whether under the pretext of stabilising allied regimes or expanding political and economic influence—amount, in this view, to a leap into the unknown.

Seeking strength through alignment with global powers or what is described here as “international Zionism” against sovereign states aspiring to independent decision-making is, in essence, a repetition of the Taifa experience. History shows that powers invited to intervene do not limit themselves to the role assigned; they pursue full dominance. At that point, those who sought their assistance find themselves without allies, having severed ties with their natural partners.

The Qur’an warns against such conduct in unequivocal terms. In verse 139 of Surah An-Nisa:

“Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers—do they seek honour among them? Indeed, all honour belongs to God.”

This verse is presented here as a political principle: that alliances with historical adversaries yield only humiliation and decline.

States that believe themselves secure while conspiring against their neighbours are mistaken. International ambitions know no bounds. Whoever opens the door to the wolf to devour his neighbour’s flock will soon find the wolf in his own home.

The unity of destiny in our region is not a sentimental choice; it is a strategic and existential necessity. Those who depart from this historical pattern should expect the fate of those who came before them—for history has its laws, and they do not change.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=13075