In 1913, Mudbir addressed a tribal gathering in Diwaniyah, lamenting Ottoman rule: Subsequently, rebels led by Mudbir clashed with Ottoman forces throughout the mid-Euphrates region of Mesopotamia. Although this rebellion ended in failure, Mudbir would continue to be the al-Fatlah chieftain.
In 1914, the Ottoman Empire called upon various chieftains to aid them in a Jihad against the British Empire. Mudbir al-Far'un was initially enthusiastic, however, following British victories in the Mesopotamian campaign, he adopted a more neutral, if not pro-British stance.
A British report described Mudbir as follows: Mudbir condemned the Ottoman massacre that followed the 1916 uprising in Hilla:
Death and succession
Mudbir died in September 1918. According to British records, he was succeeded by his brother, 'Mujbil al Fara'un. 'Mujbil had an elder brother, Mizhir, but he did not become head as his mental incapacity made him unsuitable for this position. British records note that Mujbil was "very useful to us immediately after the occupation" and "a fairly honest and not too intelligent man who is played upon by the astuter 'Abdul Wáhid, his nephew". The above account of Mudbir's succession differs from that of Peter Sluglett in Britain in Iraq: Contriving King and Country. In this account, Mudbir's tribal lands were divided between 5 of his children after his death, one of which was 'Abd al-Wahid Sikkar, who would later participate in the Iraqi revolt against the British and the 1935–36 Iraqi Shia revolts. According to Ahed Al Amiri in The Role of Karbala Scholars in Confronting the British Occupation, Mujbil would be "one of the prominent personalities of Al- Fatlah tribe and took part in the leadership of the Iraqi revolution in 1920". British records state Abdul Wahid was the chief of the Fatlah at the time of the 1920 revolt.
Historiography
The speeches in this article are taken from Fariq al Mizhir al Fir’awn's 1952 book Al Haqa’iq al Nasi’a fil Thawra al Iraiya Sanat 1920 wa Nata’ijoha. However, Fanar Haddad's 2012 analysis doubts whether these speeches were accurately recorded, and if so, is uncertain if speeches were sincere.
