Heterodox Isma 'Ilism At The Time Of Al-mu 'Izz

S. M. stern

doi:10.1017/S0041977X00106329

Heterodox Isma 'Ilism At The Time Of Al-mu 'Izz

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009

S. M. stern

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

THE historian of Isma'Ilism, to whichever part of its chequered history he turns, is confronted with unusually difficult problems of historical criticism. These are due, at least partly, to the character of the movement itself. There can be hardly any doubt that when Isma'Ilism, which had started as an underground organization in the middle of the 3rd/9th century, established itself in the 4th/10th century as a powerful empire under the Fatimids, the official leadership endeavoured to cover up the origins of the movement with a thick smoke-screen. On the other hand, its enemies and Isma'Ilism was the besthated sect in Islamadded to the confusion by giving currency to sensational and fanciful accounts, curious mixtures of truth and fiction.

Type: Articles
Information: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 1955 , pp. 10 - 33

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00106329 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 10 note 1} A good example is the story of the schism after the death of al-Amir; see my study: ' The succession of the Fatimid Imam al-Amir, the claims of the later Fatimids to the Imamate, and the rise of Tayyibi Isma'ilism ’, Oriens, 1951, 193 ff.

^{page 11 note 1} For the history of this da'i see the article ‘ Isma'IlI Propaganda, etc.’, quoted below, p. 14. As several allusions to the events in Sind will occur, a short summary of them will not be out of place. The da'i of Sind at the time of al-Mu'izz (whose name we do not know) fell out of favour owing to his views which were at variance with those of the Fatimid court. Al-Mu 'izz was making plans to bring about his fall, when the da'i was killed in a riding accident. Halam b. Shayban was then appointed as dd'i of Sind, enjoying the Imam's full confidence.

^{page 11 note 2} The letter no doubt belongs to the great letter of al-Mu'izz, of which other extracts are quoted in vol. vi of the 'Uyun al-Akhbdr of Idris Imad al-Din. In Appendix I, I have put together the fragments that are preserved. (In the article ‘Isma Ili Propaganda, etc’ (cf. below, p. 14), 301, note 4,1 wrote, alluding to extract (3): An extract from another epistle of al-Mu'izz to Halam is to be found in vol. v of the ‘Uyun al-Akhbdr ’—but now I am convinced that all the extracts come from one and the same letter.)

^{page 12 note 1} It is clear that in the preceding part of the letter al-Mu'izz has conducted a polemic against the waqifi doctrine of his heretic followers, i.e. their belief that Muhammad b. Isma'il was the last Imam. His meaning here is that once having accepted this doctrine, their further tenets, concerning the Lieutenants, followed logically from that premiss: if Muhammad b. Isma'il was the last Imam, and he died, and ‘ they developed their doctrine about him ’ (literally: ‘ they said about him what they said ’), i.e. apparently that he would return as the Qa'imthen they had no other choice but to consider the subsequent leaders of the movement as mere lieutenants of his.

^{page 12 note 2} According to the official Isma'ili doctrine, the name of the first hidden Imam was ′Abd Allah. (The first mention of the name, apart from the present implicit allusion by al-Mu′izz, seems to occur in the Istitar al-A′imma written in the reign of his successor al-′Aziz; see below, p. 22, note 1.)

^{page 13 note 1} It is this sentence, compared with the similar résumé in vi, 214 (see Appendix I, at the beginning), that proves that in both cases one and the same letter is meant.

^{page 13 note 2} For a similar case, viz. the unfounded doubts about the authenticity of the Ghdyat al-Mawalid, see the study quoted above (p. 10, note 1), 227–8

^{page 13 note 3} I borrow this characterization from my article in Byzantion, 1950, 239–240.

^{page 14 note 1} I take the opportunity to print yet another chapter from al-Majdlis wa′l-Musayarat (see Appendix III), containing a significant polemic against a member of the da′wa who professed ghuluww, i.e. considered al-Mu′izz as of divine character. Al-Mu′izz indignantly repudiates any such suggestion. Both the existence of such extremist trend within the the da′wa, and its definite repudiation by al-Mu′izz, are of the greatest importance.

^{page 14 note 2} For Muhammad b. al-Fath, see Ibn Hawqal (Kramers), 83; al-Bakri, Description de l′Afrigue septentrionale(de Slane), 151; Ibn ′Idharl, al-Bayan al-Mughrib(Colin and Lévi- Provencal), I, 222 (I, 156–7, a history of the Midrarids, taken from al-Bakri, 149 ff.); Ibn Khaldun, ′Ibar, IV, 46 = Hist. des Berbères(de Slane), 167. For a coin struck by him in 346/957–8, see E. von Bergmann, Beiträge zur muhammedanischen Münzkunde, Sitzungsber. d. Kaiserl. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, Vienna, 1873, 129 ff. (see 134 ff.), with a good sketch of the history of the Midrarid dynasty. On p. 143 Bergmann writes, after mentioning that Jawhar carried off Muhammad b. al-Fath in an iron cage: ‘ The sources are silent about the further fate of al-Shakir, who probably died in prison’. In another chapter of al-Majdlis wa′l-Musdyarat,MS. of S.O.A.S., fols. 124v–125v, we have the record of a conversation in al-Mansuriyya between al-Mu′izz and his prisoner, Ibn Wasiil (Muhammad b. al-Fath), mainly consisting of jibes against Ibn Wasfil's pretensions to the Caliphate. This kind of conversation (‘ iqamat al-liujja ’,as it is called in the case of al-Mansur and Abu Yazid) seems not to have been uncommon; we have also the record of one held between al-Mansur and Abu Yazid, after the latter had been wounded and captured; cf. Encyclopaedia of Islam²,s.v. Abu Yazi.

^{page 17 note 1} ‘ … As they professed a “ limitation ” in the case of Muhammad b. Isma′il and he died and they developed their doctrine about him…’ ‘ Their doctrine that there is no Imam after him …’

^{page 17 note 2} ‘ What they say about the seven lieutenants (khulafti′)’

^{page 17 note 3} ‘… That their number is completed with the seventh amongst them.’

^{page 17 note 4} ‘They asserted that he (Muhammad b. Isma′il) had appointed as his lieutenant someone who was not of his sons and that this lieutenant appointed after himself another lieutenant, till they reached the number seven. They asserted that the first of them was 'Abd Allah b. Maymun al-Qaddah ’.

^{page 17 note 5} ‘This lieutenant (′Abd Allah b. Maymun al-Qaddah) appointed another lieutenant’ — without adding: appointed a son of his as his lieutenant.

^{page 19 note 1} In the following argument I assume that both the letter and the conversation refer to the same heterodox wing of the Isma′IlI movement. In the notes, however (cf. p. 20, notes 2–5, p. 21, notes 2–3, p. 22, notes 2–3), I take into consideration the other possibility—that the letter and conversation refer to two distinct heterodox groups, and give an alternative argument in addition to the main argument in the text. Were this second alternative the true one, it would not affect at all the main point, as whatever is said about the group of the letter would remain valid; only one would have to add another heretic group: that of the conversation, differing from the former group in details, but agreeing with it about the non-′Alid descent of successors of Muhammad b. Isma′il.

^{page 20 note 1} This would, of course, tally well with the views of the Druzes (who say that some of the Imams after Muhammad b. Isma′il were of ‘Alid, some of ‘ Qaddahid’ descent), of Ibn Rizam (who says that al-Qa’im was not a son of al-Mahdi, al-Mahdi being a descendant of Maymun al-Qaddah, al-Qa′im of unknown origin, i.e. neither an ′Alid, nor a ‘ Qaddahid’ see below, p. 21, note 1) and B. Lewis (who maintains, like Ibn Rizam, whose statement he doesnot mention, cf. the same note) that al-Qa′im was no son of al-Mahdi, but, while al-Mahdi was a descendant of Maymun al-Qaddah, al-Qa′im was ′Alid.

^{page 20 note 2} If we assume the existence of two distinct heterodox groups (see p. 19, note), this statement would apply to the group envisaged in the letter.

^{page 20 note 3} This would apply to both groups.

^{page 20 note 4} If two distinct groups existed, this statement would apply only to the group envisaged in the letter.

^{page 20 note 5} ‘It is obviously impossible to trace anything for certain in this state of confusion. And it is well known that it really created many misunderstandings, not only in contact with the outer world, but also within the sect itself’ (Journal of the Bombay Branch, HAS., 1940, 74). ′ Hostile propaganda, trying to compromise the Fatimids, striking at the root of their authority—their ′Alid descent—reached its destination, sometimes sowing grave doubts in the different Ismaili communities. The epistle of al-Mu′izz bi′llah to his da′iin Sindh, quoted in the ‘Uyunu′l-akhbar,sufficiently proves this ’ (Rise of the Fatimids,27, and note 1). ‘ It is really remarkable that under what may be called “ the pressure of public opinion ”, a myth, invented and directed against the most vital and important doctrine of the sect, was forced into their own system ’ (ibid., 140).

^{page 21 note 1} As a matter of fact, Ibn Rizam held that only the hidden Imams and ‘Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi were descendants of Maymun al-Qaddah; he expressly says (Fihrist,189, 1) that al-Qa’im, the second Fatimid Imam, was no son of al-Mahdi, but a foundling (of non-′Alid, but also of non-‘ Qaddahid’ descent). Curiously enough, this statement of Ibn Rizam seems to have been overlooked in the discussion of Fatimid origins (cf. above, p 20, note 1).

^{page 21 note 2} Adding the doctrine about the Lieutenancy, which does not seem to occur in Ibn Rizam. (If two groups existed— cf. above, p. 19, note 1— one group, that of the conversation, is to be supposed to have taken over Ibn Rizam's idea, of the ‘ Qaddahid ’ Imams, while the other, that of the letter, embellished it with the notion of the Lieutenancy.)

^{page 21 note 3} There are three doctrines, if we admit two distinct heterodox circles.

^{page 22 note 1} Al-Mu′izz does not give a detailed account of the official Fatimid version. Nevertheless, it seems that he presupposes the version which is explicitly recounted, for the first time, in the Istitar al-A′imma,written during the reign of his successor, al-′AzIz (see Ivanow, Rise,162). At least, the two details that are mentioned fit in very well with that account, (i) The name of the successor of Muhammad b. Isma′il is ′Abd Allah, (ii) He alludes to the story of the attempted usurpation by a member of the Fatimid family, see below, p. 23, note 1.

^{page 22 note 2} If there were two heterodox groups, the above would apply to the group dealt with in the letter, but the phrase ‘ till the Lieutenancy finally reverted to the Fatimids, descendants of Muhammad b. Isma′il’ would have to be cancelled, as there is no authority for it in the letter. The other group would have to be represented as holding that Muhammad was followed by Maymun al-Qaddah as Imam, till the Imamate reverted to the Fatimids.

^{page 22 note 3} If there were two distinct heterodox groups, this would apply to the group of the letter. The group of the conversation would have to be represented as agreeing with the official party about (i), considering the successors of Muhammad b. Isma′il as Imams, but agreeing with the other heterodox party about (ii).

^{page 23 note 1} Al-Mu′izz is alluding to a story told explicitly in the Istitar al-A′imma,written a generation later, under al-′Aziz (Ivanow, Rise,162). Sa′id al-Khayr, the uncle of al-Mahdi, was appointed hy al-Mahdi's father, al-Husayn, as trustee for the infant al-Mahdi. Sa′id al-Khayr tried to make his son Imam, but he died—then another son, who also died; and so on until all his ten sons died and he had no choice but to instal the rightful heir, al-Mahdi. The same story is referred to by al-Nu′man himself but, as in the present passage, without details: Shar al- Usul,quoted in Ivanow, Rise,Arabic texts, 15.

^{page 23 note 2} For these events see the article ‘ Isma′ili propaganda, etc.’, quoted above, p. 14.

^{page 24 note 1} This may refer to extract (3), cf. above, p. 11, note 2.

^{page 24 note 2} Qur′an, xxvn, 92.

^{page 24 note 3} Qur′an, XLI, 52.

^{page 24 note 4} MS.

^{page 24 note 5} above line. I suggest the reading

^{page 25 note 1} Cf. Qar‘ The Byzantine unbelievers were submissively paying tribute and keeping the treaty ’—this refers to the treaty of 346/957–8, ef. S. M. Stern, ‘ An Embassy of the Byzantine Emperor to the Fatimid Caliph al-Mu’, Byzantion, 1950, 239 ff.—The Muslim defeats in Syria refer to the spectacular successes of the Byzantines under Nicephorus against Sayf al-Dawla, from 351/962 onwards; cf. M. Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des H′amdanides, 1, 805 ff.—The Byzantines broke the treaty and invaded the frontiers of al-Mu′izz by attacking an islandthis refers to the Sicilian war of 351/962. As a matter of fact, it was al-Mu′izz who repudiated the treaty of 346/957–8, owing to the Byzantine invasion of Crete in 350/961 (see the above-mentioned article in Byzantion, 1950,252), and took the offensive in Sicily. In 351/962 Taormina was taken by the Fatimid army; a fleet and an army sent from Constantinople were defeated; the commander of the army, Manuel Phocas, fell, and the admiral Nicetas was taken prisoner; see M. Amari, Storia del Musulmani di Sicilia², II, 296–313. (It seems that al-Mu′izz had no information about the death of the commander, as he says: ‘ The arrogant polytheist, who exercised command over them, escaped as a destitute fugitive, etc.’.)

^{page 25 note 2} I have already published extract (2), with a translation, in the article ‘ Isma'31 propaganda’, etc, (quoted above, p. 14), p. 302

^{page 26 note 1} MS

^{page 26 note 2} Here begins the extract printed by Ivanow.

^{page 26 note 3} MS

^{page 26 note 4} It is doubtful what was originally written (a trace of red ink underneath seems to indicate correction; on the margin there is but this is cancelled with red ink); Iv.