Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:14:15.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A re-examination of al-Mahdī's letter to the Yemenites on the genealogy of the Fatimid caliphs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Abbas Hamdani  and
François de Blois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since the establishment of the Fatimid empire in the early part of the 10th century of the Christian era the origin of its rulers has been the subject of incessant discussion and polemics. This was, for the people of the time, no idle academic question, but one of immediate political importance. The defenders of the declining Abbasid state went to great lengths to discredit the rulers of the dynamic rival caliphate in the West, denouncing them not only as rebels and heretics, but also as impudent swindlers falsely claiming to belong to the house of the Prophet, while they were in reality the offspring of one Maymūn al-Qaddāḥ. The Fatimid rulers, for their part, maintained all along that they did indeed belong to the family of Muḥammad, and traced their lineage, at least from the middle of the 10th century onwards, to Ismā‘īl, the second son and, it was claimed, only legitimate successor of the famous Shi‘ite leader Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq, the great-grandson of ‘All and of Fāṭimah, the Prophet's daughter. The Ismaili descent of these rulers became a matter of faith for their partisans, who survive to the present day, in various branches, proudly identifying themselves precisely as “Ismailis”. Historians, whether in the Muslim world or, later, in the West, have taken sides in this ancient dispute, which flares up again from time to time, often with astonishing ferocity.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 115 , Issue 2 , April 1983 , pp. 173 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1983

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

NOTES

1 This article grew out of studies and discussions undertaken by the two authors in November and December 1982 in London. The reader is requested to note the following bibliographical abbreviations:

BFA = Bulletin of the Faculty of Letters, Egyptian University, IV, 1936Google Scholar (published 1939). Genealogy = al-Hamdani, H. F.. On the genealogy of the Fatimid Caliphs (Publications of the American University at Cairo. School of Oriental Studies. Occasional Paper No. 1) Cairo, 1958.Google Scholar

“Imamat” = Madelung, W.. “Das Imamat in der frühen ismailitischen Lehre”, Der Islam, XXXVII, 1961,43–135.Google Scholar

Kosmologie = Halm, H., Kosmologie und Heilslehre der frühen Ismā‘īlīya (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XLIV, 1), Wiesbaden, 1978.Google Scholar

Rise = Ivanov, W.: Ismaili tradition concerning the rise of the Fatimids, London, 1942.Google Scholar

In the text of the article some common terms such as “Ismaili”, “Fatimid”, “Abdallahid”, “imam”, “Yemen”, etc. are treated as English words and written without diacritical signs.

2 Hamdani, H. F., Genealogy.Google Scholar

3 See Poonawala, I. K., Bio-bibliography of Ismā‘īlī literature, Malibu, 1977, 73 no. 6.Google Scholar

4 “Imamat”, 81 n. 197.Google Scholar

5 For his biography see Halm, H.: Die Welt des Orients, XII, 1981, 107–35.Google Scholar

6 Madelung, , “Imamat”, 69–70;Google ScholarMakmsm, S. N., al-Abḥath, XXI, 1969, 23–37;Google ScholarNagel, T., Frühe Ismailiya und die Fatimiden im Lichte der risālat iftitāḥ ad-da'wa, Bonn, 1972, 69–70;Google ScholarHalm, , Kosmologie, 4.Google Scholar

7 “Imamat”, 70 n. 142.Google Scholar

8 Genealogy 3–7 of the Arabic section.Google Scholar

9 Goriawala, Mu‘izz: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Fyzee Collection of Ismaili Manuscripts, Bombay, 1965.Google Scholar

10 F adds: wa bihi nasta‘īn.

11 F: kitābin. H: kitābinā.

12 The eulogy is missing in F.

13 al-taqiyyah twice in H, at the end of p. 13 and the beginning of p. 14.

14 H: muḥammadun wa ‘abdullāhi. F: ‘abdullāhi wa muḥammadun.

15 F: qawmun bi ghayr. H: qawmun ghayr.

16 i.e. “proofs”, a title given to high dignitaries in the Fatimid da‘wah. The sentence apparently means that the ḥujjahs were directed to impersonate the imams (see the story of the imam Aḥmad and his unfortunate dā‘ī, below p. 194), while the imams disguised themselves as ḥujjahs (see the quotation from the Kitāb al-kashf, below p. 191).

17 F: fa kāna ’l-imāmu ‘abdallāhi bna ja‘farin, thumma ba‘dahu ‘abdallāhi bna ‘abdillāhi, thumma aḥmada bna ‘abdillāhi, thumma muḥammada bna muḥammad. H has the same text except that the last name is: muḥammada bna aḥmad. The reading in F is clearly the lectio difficilior; since the third name mentioned is aḥmad it is easy to see why a scribe might have changed the name of the father of the fourth to aḥmad also. See below pp. 179–181.

18 sic.

19 Ja‘far is apparently saying that the fact that “Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad” called himself “Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad” is a “sign”, etc. that the name “Muḥammad” is merely a pseudonym. For a different interpretation see Genealogy p. 13 and n. 17.Google Scholar

20 awṣā. Literally: “made his executor (waṣī)”. In Ismaili writings waṣī is often used for the “successor” of an imam.

21 both MSS. have zamānan bi dhālik.

22 In F one line was omitted by the copyist, namely the words fa saḥḥat … to … Muḥammadi bni ‘abdillāh. Thus the whole passage from wa ẓahara … to … al-imāmi ’l-muntaẓar has been recopied in the margin (Fm).

23 H, F: ma‘ahu. Missing in Fm.

24 H, F: abū’l-qāsim. Fm: abū’l-qā’im.

25 F. Fm: banū ‘abdillāh. Missing in H.

26 Both MSS. (H and Fm) have al-qā’imi ’l-mahdī.

27 H, F: abī ’l-qāsim. Fm: abū ’l-qasim.

28 H: dawlati ’l-dīn. F: dawlati ’l-dunyā.

29 Both MSS. have: ‘aliyyu bnu ’l-ḥusayni bni ‘aliyyi bni aḥmada bni ‘abdillāhi bni ‘abdillāhi thānīhi bni ja‘far …

30 H: ajma‘in. Missing in F.

31 F: wa’smuhu. H: wa‘smun.

32 H: muḥammad. Missing in F.

33 H: fa qāla. F: qāla.

34 F: taqūmu ’l-qiyāmatu ‘alā yadihi. H: taqūmu ‘l-sā‘atu minhu.

35 Both MSS. have innamā (not wa innamā) nubashshirukum bi ’l-mahdī (not ‘l-muhtadi).

36 Both MSS. have wa yakūnu min wuldihi hudātun. The emendation suggested by the editor is not necessary.

37 F: fa innamā dhālika yakūnu. H: fa innamā yakūnu dhālika.

38 Both MSS. have: fa lā yatamannahu.

39 H, F: bi ‘ilmihi. Fm: bi ‘amalihi.

40 H, F: ḥādithun. Fm: ḥārithun.

41 F: kitābihi. H: kitābin.

42 H: mumallak. Fm: muslak. F: .

43 The first five imams “with the sword” named here occur also in the Kitāb al-fatarāt wa’l-qirānāt, ascribed to Ja‘far ibn Manṣūr al-Yaman. See Kosmologie, 32–7.Google Scholar

44 Muslim scholars familiar with Judaeo-Christian tradition generally identify the Koranic prophet Idrīs with Enoch, but that does not fit the present text, where he is ascribed to the period before Noah.

45 Fāligh. Both MSS. omit the point on the ghayn. For Peleg see Gen. 10, 25.

46 F: sulaymānu bnu dā’ūd. H: dā’ūdu wa sulaymān. The Kitāb al-fatarāt has only Solomon as the imam “with the sword”.

47 Bukht Naṣr (Naṣṣar, etc.) is the normal Arabic form for the Biblical , itself a corruption of the name of the Babylonian king Nabū-kudurrī-uṣṣur, who lived in the 6th century B.C. As can be seen, the author of our text had no clear idea of the chronology of this person.

48 H: fa ya‘nī. F: wa ya‘nī.

49 F: al-mahdiyyu minnā. minnā is missing in H. See below n. 84.

50 Both MSS. have ya’rizu. For the ḥadīth quoted in Genealogy, 13 n. 1Google Scholar (Arabic section) see Wensinck's, Concordance I, 111 b.Google Scholar

51 Both MSS. have wa ‘addu.

52 The eulogy is in both MSS. but missing in Genealogy.

53 Both MSS. have al-sharḥi ’lladhī. As the editor notes, the text does not seem to be quite in order, though the meaning is clear.

54 H: al-‘adadu fī. Missing in F, but added in Fm.

55 Both MSS. have alladhīna dhakara. The editor's emendation is unnecessary.

56 F: fī kitābin lahu thānī (read: thānin). H: fī kitābihi lahu thānī.

57 Both MSS. have allatī fīhā, perhaps an error for allotï fīhī. Retaining the MS. reading, Genealogy, 11 translates: “according to the narrative in which it exists”. But what does that mean?

58 H: lafẓatun. Missing in F, but added in Fm.

59 Both MSS. have lā (not wa lā) tuḥīlu ’l-ma‘nā. This is all more or less stereotyped phraseology to express the fact that the author is reproducing something from memory. cf. al-Rāzī, AbūḤātim: A ‘lām al-nubuwwah, ed. al-Ṣāwī, Ṣalāḥ, Tehran, 1977, 9:Google Scholarfa hādhā mā jarā fī hādhihi ’l-mas‘alati, wa in kāna’l-kalāmu yazīdu wa yanquṣu wa’l-alfāẓu takhtalifu, kāna jumlatuhu wa ma‘ānīhi mā qad dhakartuh.

60 H: allāhu. Missing in F.

61 “Imamat”, 70 n. 142.Google Scholar

62 See also below n. 104.

63 Jamharat ansāb al-‘arab, edited by Lévi-Provençal, E., Cairo, 1948, 53 1. 10–12;Google Scholar“Imamat”, 72 n. 158.Google Scholar

64 Firaq al-shī‘ah, ed. Ritter, H., Istanbul, 1931, 65–6.Google Scholar

65 Kitāb al-maqālāt wa’l-firaq, ed. Mashkūr, M. J., Tehran, 1963, 87–8 §§ 163–4.Google Scholar

66 Kitāb al-zīnah. Hamdani MS. p. 322.Google Scholar

67 op. cit., 88 §§ 166–167Google Scholar. One might remark that the adventures here attributed to Muḥammad ibn ‘Abdalläh resemble what later Ismaili authors say about Muḥammad ibn Ismā’l, who, likewise, is supposed to have gone to Khurāsān, and even to India.

68 Perhaps it is to some sect of this kind that al-Mahdī refers when he speaks of people who attached themselves to ‘Abdallāh “on account of a conjecture” [9].

69 Kitāb nasab quraysh, edited by Lévi-Provençal, E., Cairo, 1953, 64 1. 15–8.Google Scholar

70 ibid., 64 1. 2–3.

71 See n. 63; repeated op. cit., 53 1. 18.Google Scholar

72 op. cit., 53 1. 18.Google Scholar

73 op. cit., 64 1. 1.Google Scholar

74 al-Muqaddimah, ed. Quatremère, , I, 362–3;Google Scholar cf. ibid. II, 185; al-‘Ibar, Būlāq, , 1284 h., III, 360; IV 31. In ‘Ibar III 361 he gives the same names as being those of the imams recognized by the Ismailis.Google Scholar

75 Itti‘āẓ al-ḥunafā’, I, edited by al-Shayyāl, , Cairo, 1967, 16;Google Scholar likewise in his Mawā‘iẓ al-i‘tibār and his al-Muqaffā.

76 In the letter he refers to himself as the mahdī [39, 46] and the one “with the sword” [45, 50]. Ja‘far, of course, refers to him with his regnal name al-Mahdā.

77 Called al-qā’im al-mahdī in [30]. He is also clearly the mahdī whose name is Muḥammad mentioned in [12], and the ṣäḥib al-ẓuhūr named Muḥammad in [16].

78 cf. [42] and [46). Apparently also the “speaker” in [53].

79 Edited by Kāmil Ḥusayn, M. in Collectanea (The Ismaili Society Series A, No. 2), Leiden, 1948, 185–213;Google Scholar translated in Ivanow, W., Studies in early Persian Ismailism, Bombay, 1955, 32–59.Google Scholar cf. “Imamat”, 51–2.Google Scholar

80 p. 191: inna bayna kulli nāṭiqin ilā nāṭiqin sab‘ata a’immatin mutimmīn. The same doctrine is propounded in the Kitāb al-Kashf (see below n. 101) p. 16, and in other sections of Ja‘far’s Kitāb al-Farā’id. Cf. “Imamat”, pp. 54 and 95.Google Scholar

81 p. 199.

82 p. 199.

83 See n. 79.

84 Madelung states (“Imamat”, 104)Google Scholar that the concept of the fatrah, the interval between the disappearance of the seventh imam and the coming of the new speaker, was introduced by Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī in his Kitāb al-iṣlāḥ. But Halm (Kosmologie, 32)Google Scholar has drawn attention to the fact that it occurs already in al-Mahdā’s letter, and also later in the Kitāb al-fatarāt. Halm paraphrases the sentence quoted here as: “nach ‘dem Siebten, dem Mahdī’ gebe es eine Zwischenzeit…”, apparently reading takūnu ba‘da ’l-sābi‘i ’l-mahdiyyi fatratun… We have retained the reading of the two MSS: yakūnu, and vocalize: ba‘da ’l-sābi‘i ’l-mahdiyyu minnā fatratan… It is difficult to see how the fatrah could come “after the mahdī” as proposed by Halm; al-Mahdī‘s letter, Abū Ḥātim, and the Kitāb al-fatarāt all agree in placing the fatrah before the coming of the new nāṭiq.

85 The authors do not share the positive opinion which various scholars have held of the account of these events attributed to “Akhū Muḥsin”.

86 Mr Amin Haji of the Institute for Ismaili Studies, London, has kindly supplied us with the following information: Syrian Nizārī authors such as Abu ’l-Ma‘alī Ḥātim ibn ‘Imran ibn Zuhrah (12th century) give the same names as Fatimid and Ṭayyibī sources; see his Risālat al-uṣul wa’l-aḥkām, in ‘Tāmir, Ārif, Khams rasā’il ismā‘īliyyah, Beirut, 1956, 107.Google Scholar However, the Haft bāb of Abū lsḥāq Quhistānī, (late 15th century), edited by Ivanow, W. (Bombay, 1959) p. 23Google Scholar of the Persian text gives all three the name Aḥmad. Kalām-i pīr, an expanded version of the same, ed. Ivanow, W., Bombay, 1935, 50Google Scholar of the Persian text substitutes the names Aḥmad, Muḥammad, Muḥammad. The Badakhshānī Persian text Irshād al-ṭālibīn by Muḥibbu ’l-dīn Qunduzī (16th century), 7–8 of Amin Haji's MS., has: Aḥmad, Muḥammad, Aḥmad. The version officially accepted by the Qāsimshāhī followers of the Āghā Khān, namely: Wafī Aḥmad, Taqī Muḥammad, Radi ‘Abdallāah, is first attested in Muṛ Gāyatrī by Sayyid Imām Shāh (died 919/1513), in Devrāj, Laljibhai: Satpanth Gnan Sagar (Bombay 1921), I, 20.Google Scholar The same tradition is reflected in the Dīwān of Khākī Khurāsānī (died after 1056/1646), p. 409Google Scholar of Amin Haji‘s MS. (not in Ivanow‘s edition) where we find Wafī Aḥmad, Taqī (proper name not given), Raḍī ‘Abdallāh.

87 Arabic text in BFA, 93–107;Google Scholar translation in Rise, 157–63.Google Scholar

88 For example his Kitāb al-adillah wa ’l-shawāhid quoted in ‘Alī, Zāhid: Hamāre ismā‘īlī madhhab kī haqīqat awr uska niẓām, Hyderabad (Deccan), 1954, 129.Google Scholar cf. “Imamat”, 99.Google Scholar

89 Al-Risālah al-waḥīdah. The relevant passage is edited and translated by Hamdani, A. in Arabica, XXVI, 1979, 64 and 75.Google Scholar

90 See below p. 193.

91 BFA, 95–6;Google ScholarRise, 162–3.Google Scholar

92 The relevant passage is in Rise, 15 (Arabic section).Google Scholar

93 Edited by al-Faqī, Ḥ. et al. , Tunis, 1978, 410–1.Google Scholar Also published with comments by Stern, S. M., Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XVII, 1955, 10–33.Google Scholar

94 It is also possible that the reference to succession min ghayri’l-a‘qāb, etc. reflects a vague remembrance of the two parallel lines, as proposed by us.

95 Rise, 35–9 (Arabic section).Google Scholar

96 As we know, al-Mahdī actually did use the name Sa‘īd. It seems most likely that the author of Istitār al-imām has falsely transferred this name to al-Mahdī's “uncle”.

97 “Imamat”, 73–80.Google Scholar

98 ed. Ghālib, Muṣṭafā, Beirut, 1975, 89.Google Scholar

99 BFA, 109:Google Scholarmuddatan yasīrah. Idrīs, loc. cit., has bi ayyāmin yasīrah.

100 The account given in Sīrat Ja‘far al-Ḥājib is more ambiguous: we are told that “the imam” married al-Mahdī “to his cousin”, and that even before that he appointed him his successor (BFA, 108–9;Google ScholarRise, 186–7)Google Scholar. Nowhere does Ja‘far al-Ḥājib say that “the imam” was al-Mahdī's father. But he does not say, either, that the imam married al-Mahdī to his own daughter, but merely to “his” (al-Mahdi's) cousin. It should be noted that the Sīrah was written down by Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Yamānī during the reign of al-‘Azīz, i.e. at a time when the “orthodox” genealogy had already come into force. It is possible, therefore, that the author has deliberately chosen to express himself vaguely.

101 ed. Strothmann, R. (Bombay/Cairo 1952);Google Scholar cf. “Imamat”, 52–8;Google ScholarKosmologie, 18–9.Google Scholar Al-Ḥakīm is also quoted in Kitāb al-fatarāt; see Halm, , Die Welt des Orients, VIII, 1975, 97.Google Scholar

102 p. 98–9.

103 ‘alaynā salāmuhu. cf. Kitāb al-rushd wa ’l-hidāyah 198:Google Scholaral-mahdī ‘alaynā minhu ’l-raḥmah. This sort of eulogy, seemingly attributing a god-like nature to the imam, is not to our knowledge used in later Fatimid writings, though it is found, applied to al-Ḥākim, in the Druze scriptures.

104 Kitāb al-zīnah, Hamdani MS. p. 233: wa ka dhālika ja‘faru bnu Muḥammadin baqiya khamsan wa ‘ishrīna sanatan laysa lahu waladun ghayru ismā‘īla wa ‘abdillāh… wa ’htajjū (namely the Ismailis) bi anna ja‘faran lam yatazawwaj ‘alā ummihimā bi ukharā (MS.: bi aḥadin) mina ’l-nisā’i wa lā tasarrā jāriyatan ka sunnati rasūli llāhi ṣallā ’llāhu ‘alayhi fa innahu lam yatazawwaj ‘alā khadījata wa lā tasarrā ‘alayhā jāriyatan ḥattā mātat raḍiya ’llāhu ‘anhā wa ka dhālika ‘aliyyun karrama ’llahu wajhahu lam yatazawwaj ‘alā fāṭimata wa lā tasarrā ‘alayhā ḥattā mātat raḍiya ’llāhu ‘anhā fa kadhā fa‘ala ja‘faru ’bnu Muḥammadin ‘alayhi ’l-salāmu lam yatazawwaj ‘alā ummi ismā‘īla wa hiya fāṭimatu bintu ‘ammihi (note here too the loose use of the word “uncle”) ḥattā mātat idhā ‘urifa anna ‘l-ḥujjata (here clearly in the sense imam) min wuldihā.Google Scholar

105 p. 121.

106 Published and discussed by Ivanow, in Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, XVI, 1940, 74–6,Google Scholar and by Stern, in BSOAS, XVII, 1955, 10–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

107 Rise, 305–13 (English), 107–13 (Arabic).Google Scholar

108 See above pp. 183.

109 Vol. IV, ed. Ghalib, M., Beirut, 1973, 391–2;Google Scholar cf. Hamdani, H. F., Der Islam, XXII, 1932, 292–300;Google ScholarHamdani, A., Arabica, XXVI, 1919, 71;Google ScholarRise, 252.Google Scholar

110 It is noteworthy that this genealogy, which, as we have suggested, was current at the time when al-Qā’im ruled in North-West Africa, has been preserved precisely by the maghri-bī author Ibn Khaldūn (the Egyptian al-Maqrīzī apparently has it from him).

111 ed. de Goeje, , Leyden, 1895, 395.Google Scholar

112 ed. Flügel, , Leipzig, 1871, 186–7.Google Scholar

113 The derivation of the Fatimids from “Dayṣān” is mentioned in the so-called “Baghdād manifesto” of 402/1011, quoted in ’l-Fidā’, Abū, Annales, ed. Fleischer, , III, 15–17.Google Scholar Curiously the “manifesto” has nothing to say about Maymūn al-Qaddāḥ and his son.

114 Al-āthār al-bāqiyah, ed. Sachau, E., Leipzig, 1876–1878, 39. The printed text gives the name of al-Mahdī's father as al-Ḥasan; this is clearly an error for al-Ḥusayn.Google Scholar

115 His account is quoted extensively by the 14th-century historians al-Nuwayrī, Ibn al-Dawādāri, and al-Maqrīzī. For detailed references see Kosmologie, 2 n. 7.Google Scholar

116 Bombay, 1946. See also S. M. Stern's article “‘Abd Allāh b. Maymūn” in the new Encyclopaedia of Islam.

117 cf. Ivanow, , Alleged founder, 111;Google Scholar“Imamat”, 46 n. 17;Google Scholaral-Sijistānī, Abū Ya‘qūb, Ithbāt al-nubuwwāt, ed. Tāmir, ‘Ārif, Beirut, 1966, 190.Google Scholar Idrīs, Zahr al-ma‘ānī, in Rise, 232 (English), 47 (Arabic), calls Ismā‘īl al-mubārak al-maymūn.Google Scholar

118 Al-Radd ‘alā ’l-rawāfiḍ, quoted in “Imamat”, 46.Google Scholar

119 op. cit., 57.Google Scholar

120 op. cit., 81.Google Scholar

121 Kitāb al-zīnah, Hamdani MS. p. 233.Google Scholar See “Imamat”, 47 n. 20.Google Scholar

122 See above n. 16.

123 One cannot very well agree with Halm when he writes (Kosmologie, 5 n. 16) that “the first Fatimid apparently considered it advantageous to connect himself to an ancestor who generally (gemeinhin) was considered to have had no children; in so doing he avoided difficulties which any surviving descendants might have raised for him”. If it was really commonly known and generally accepted that ‘Abdallāh had no sons it could hardly have been “advantageous” for al-Mahdī to claim to descend from such a person.Google Scholar

124 See in particular Silvestre de Sacy, A. I., Exposé de la religion des Druzes, Paris, 1838, I, 34–9;Google Scholar“Imamat”, 75–6, 115–16;Google ScholarBryer, D. R. W., Der Islam, LII, 1975, 247, 258–9;Google Scholar LIII, 1976, 13; and the works named in notes 126 and 129.

125 British Library Add. 11,559 fol. 81 b; Or. 1435 fol. 79a–b.

126 The origins of Ismā‘īlism, Cambridge, 1940, 51–4 and 72–3.Google Scholar

127 “Imamat”, 76 n. 179.Google Scholar

128 British Library Add. 11,559 fol. 83b–84a; Or. 1435 fol. 81a–82b.

129 See also Makarem, S. N., al-Abḥath, XXI, 1969, 31 n. 4;Google Scholar 32 n. 5. We are happy to express agreement with S. N. Makarem as to the identity of the first two “heavens”, although we disagree with many other details of his exposition.

130 As in n. 128.

131 British Library MS. Add. 11,558 fol. 102a.