Moreover...

Moreover, they belong to several centuries after the period of the events in question. Yet, we may mention another writer whose lack of care and susceptibility to influence by the background of Sunni-Shii differences has led him a step further than Ibn Taymiyyah in laying the blame on the Shiah in general, although he defends the Khwajah against the charge of irreligion. He refers to the Shi'i role as one of the primary causes of the downfall of the caliphate.

[^17] He writes: "...And eventually during the period, the hand of Shi'ism came out of the sleeve of the Mongols and finished the matter once for all." [^18] He cites Khwand Mir (9th/15th century) in Habib al-siyar, Qadi Nur Allah al-Shushtari, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, and al Subki with regard to the alleged role of the Khwajah in the overthrowal of the Caliph, and writes: "...Almost all the sources agree in the matter."' [^19] No such consensus existed among the historians who lived close to the time of the downfall of Baghdad, as will be made clear later on?

[^20] The reliability of the afore-mentioned writings is doubtful, since they reflect the writers' prejudice. Even if it is assumed that Khwajah Nasir al-Din had a hand in the event, any statement to the effect that "the hand of Shi'ism came out of the Mongol sleeve" is a regrettable lapse for anyone while making a serious historical judgement, and especially when made by a researcher. Previous…