theories if he has to deal with a Shiʿite, to express sympathy with
ʿAli and his two sons, and repugnance towards the Arabs who put them
to death. If he has to deal with a Sabian, emphasis was laid on the
reverence paid to the numeral seven. If his conversation was with a
Zoroastrian, his principles are at the basis very similar to those of
the Ismaʿilians, and with him the _daʿi_ may commence at the fourth
grade. If his business is with a Jew, he should explain that the Mahdi
Muhammad b. Ismaʿil is the Messiah expected by the Jews and speak much
against the Muslims and Christians, especially about their erroneous
beliefs as to the unique birth of Christ, making it plain that Joseph the
carpenter was undoubtedly his father. With Christians, on the contrary,
it is advised to speak ill of the Muslims and Jews, explaining that the
Ismaʿilians recognise the Christian creed, but giving it an allegorical
interpretation, and showing that the Paraclete is yet to come, and is
the true Imam to whom they are invited to come. In dealing with dualists
or Manichaeans the _daʿi_ may begin at the sixth grade of initiation,
or if the convert seems worthy of confidence, the whole doctrine may be
revealed at once. With one of the “philosophers” who, in true Muslim
fashion, are treated as a distinct sect, emphasis is to be laid on the
fact that the essential points of the Ismaʿilian faith are based on the
teachings of philosophy, and the sect agrees with them in everything
concerning the prophets and the eternity of the world; but some of the
philosophers differ from the Ismaʿilians in admitting a Being who rules
the world, though confessing that he is unknown. With “dualists,” _i.e._,
Muslims of the sect so called (cf. De Sacy: _Druses_, p. lxviii., note
3), victory is sure; it is only necessary to dwell on the doctrine of the
pre-existing and the second. With orthodox Sunnis the missionary is to
speak with respect of the early Khalifs, avoid eulogies upon ʿAli and his
sons, even mentioning some things about them which call for disapproval:
great pains should be taken to secure Sunni adherents as they form
most useful defenders. When dealing with a Shiʿite who accepts Musa,
the son of Jaʿfar, and his descendants, great care is necessary: the
_daʿi_ should dwell on the moral laws of Islam, but explain the sacred
associations of the number seven. With some it is impossible to venture
further and show that the religion of Muhammad is now abrogated, with
others it is possible even to show that the ritual laws of the Qurʾan are
obsolete, with a few he may proceed to admit that the _Kaʾim_ is really
dead, that he comes back to the world only in a spiritual manner, and
explain allegorically the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Each
is to be dealt with according to his beliefs, and care must be taken not
to offend his religious prejudices. The _daʿi_ is advised to study the
history of ancient legislators, their adventures, systems and sects, so
as to have a fund of illustration which will arrest the attention of
their pupils.
Such was the system formed by ʿAbdullah, probably somewhere before
A.H. 250, and by him grafted on the already existing sect of Shiʿites,
which upheld the claims of Ismaʿil, the son of Jaʿfar. In the reign
of Maʾmun (A.H. 198-218) ʿAbdullah had joined the revolt of Ishaq b.
Ibrahim at Karkh and Ispahan, and formed a close friendship with the
wealthy Muhammad b. Husayn b. Jihan-Bakhtar ad-Didan, a Persian prominent
for his intense hatred of the Arabs, and it was he who first supplied
ʿAbdullah with funds to begin his propaganda (cf. Quatremère in _Journ.
Asiat._, Aug., 1836). It is not easy to form any clear scheme of the
chronology of the sect in its early days, nor to follow the details of
its history: conspiracies and secret societies do not leave much in the
way of documentary evidence of their first formation. That ʿAbdullah
was associated with a rebellion in the reign of Maʾmun is hardly
likely; it seems rather that Muhammad b. Husayn ad-Didan (Dandan, or
Zaydan) was so associated, and he afterwards befriended ʿAbdullah. This
Muhammad was secretary to Ahmad ibn ʿAbdu l-ʿAziz ibn Abi Dolaf, who
became prince of Karaj in A.H. 265. No doubt ʿAbdullah was a younger
contemporary, assisted by the old anti-Arab agitator. Certainly ʿAbdullah
was established at Basra, whither he had removed from Persia, before 261
(_Fihrist_, 187), lodging there with the family of ʿAgil ibn Abi Talib.
Thence he went to Syria, presumably finding suspicion aroused at Basra,
and made his headquarters at Salamiya in the territory of Emessa (Maq.
i., 348-9: ii., 11), and from there sent out missionaries who preached
the claims of Muhammad b. Ismaʿil b. Jaʿfar as the “concealed” Imam, and
of ʿAbdullah himself as the Mahdi or “guide,” who was to prepare men for
the Imam’s return to earth (Maq. i., 348). At Salamiya he had a son named
Ahmad, and when he died Ahmad succeeded him as head of the sect.
Ahmad, like his father, sent out missionaries, and one of these was
instrumental in founding the important branch known as the _Qarmatians_,
a branch so important and prominent that some, e.g., Jamal ad-Din, have
regarded the Ismaʿilians as their off-shoot. The fact seems to be that
there were at first members of one body, then circumstances gave the
Qarmatians a political opening in Syria and ʿIraq, and, in a position of
independence, they developed their doctrines more openly than the rest of
the sect and, being drawn from the peasant class, these assumed a grosser
form: whilst the other or parent community found a career in Africa
but, as they became there a ruling minority with a subject majority of
orthodox type, they were induced to observe some semblance of orthodoxy.
ʿAbdullah was succeeded as head of the Ismaʿilian sect by his son Ahmad.
According to the _Fihrist_ he was succeeded first by his son Muhammad,
then by a second son Ahmad, the latter being also described as the son of
Muhammad, and so grandson of ʿAbdullah (_Fihrist_, p. 137). This Ahmad
may be the one who was at Basra for some time, then at Kufa, whence in
266 or thereabouts he sent missionaries to Yemen; possibly he was the
Ahmad al-Qaiyal who wrote a book on the Imamate, which was refuted by
Razi (d. 320).
After Ahmad came his son Husayn, who died not long afterwards, leaving a
son named Saʿid, who subsequently took the name of ʿUbayd Allah, and was
the Mahdi who established the Fatimid State in North Africa, dying in
A.H. 323 (= A.D. 934). That he was originally called Saʿid is generally
admitted, but he appears variously as Saʿid son of Husayn son of Ahmad,
and Saʿid son of Ahmad, and Saʿid son of Abu Shalaghlagh. The explanation
given for these different names is that Ahmad had two sons, of whom the
elder, Husayn, died whilst Saʿid was still young, and the son was adopted
by his uncle Muhammad, the second son of Ahmad, who was also known as Abu
Shalaghlagh.
There is a story that Saʿid or ʿUbayd Allah was the son of an obscure
Jewish smith, whose widow was married to Husayn, son of Ahmad, and that
he was adopted by his step-father. This is one of the three forms of
what we may call the “Jewish legend,” the attempt to trace the Fatimid
dynasty to a Jewish source. These three attempts are: (i.) that Maymun b.
Daysan the oculist was a Jew; (ii.) that ʿUbayd Allah was really the son
of a Jewish smith; and (iii.) that he was killed in prison at Sijilmassa,
and afterwards personated by a Jewish slave. Probably the “Jewish legend”
was associated with the fact that the renegade Jew, Ibn Killis, was the
one who encouraged the Fatimids to invade Egypt and did most to organise
their government there, and with the undoubted favouritism which the
early Fatimids showed the Jews.
A new development in the teaching of the sect took place under Husayn,
or possibly commenced under his father Ahmad. ʿAbdullah had been content
to describe himself as the “Mahdi” or guide, who was to lead men to
the Imam, who was Ismaʿil, or his son Muhammad; he made no claim to be
himself a descendant of the Imam. Probably it was a later theory that
the Imam was “concealed” only in the sense that he had to hide himself
from the ʿAbbasid Khalif. Later still, when a Fatimid Khalif was actually
ruling in Cairo, the claim to descent from ʿAli through ʿAbdullah and his
family became a matter of heated controversy.
Historians differ very much as to how far the Fatimids succeeded in
proving their ʿAlid descent, and contemporary opinion was quite as
varied. Abu l-Hasan Muhammad Masawi, commonly known as Radi, born at
Baghdad in 359 and dying in 406, was himself an undoubted descendant of
Husayn the son of ʿAli, and was official keeper of the records of ʿAlid
genealogy. As Abu l-Feda notes (_Ann. Mosl._, ii. 309) he, in one of his
poems, fully admits the legitimate descent of the Fatimids of Egypt from
ʿAli, and the actual passage is extant (cf. _Diwan_ of Radi, Beirut, p.
972): but in 402 this same Radi joined with other ʿAlids and certain
canonists in a proclamation denouncing the Fatimids and declaring their
claimed genealogy as baseless. It is natural to suppose that in this
he was actuated by fear or complaisance, and this difficulty meets us
throughout; the whole question was so much a matter of current political
controversy that it was practically impossible to get anything like an
unbiassed opinion. Maqrizi, the leading Egyptian authority of a later
age, was strongly pro-Fatimid, but he claims the noble rank of _sayyid_
on the ground of descent from ʿAli through the Fatimids, and so is
prejudiced in their favour. He argues that the ʿAlid descent of the
Fatimids was never attacked by the acknowledged ʿAlids who then existed
in considerable numbers (Maq. i., 349), an argument which is far from
being true.
Elsewhere Maqrizi defends the Fatimid claims by saying that the ʿAlids
were always suspected by the ʿAbbasid Khalifs, and so “they had no resort
but to conceal themselves and were scarcely known, so that Muhammad b.
Ismaʿil, the Imam ancestor of ʿUbayd Allah, was called the ‘concealed’”
(Maq. i., 349). But this tells the other way: it admits that the ʿAlid
genealogy was not well known: and the mere fact that ʿAbdullah was sought
for by the Khalif simply shows that his pretensions were known to be
dangerous, as a Mahdi with a body of followers would necessarily be,
and is no proof of the validity of the descent afterwards claimed by
ʿAbdullah’s descendants. The obscurity of the ʿAlid genealogy afterwards
favoured the Fatimid claims, but it does not seem that that claim was
part of their original programme. The first idea was to support the
claims of the vanished Imam, claims selected in all probability because
of the convenient fact that he had vanished, and to represent ʿAbdullah
and his descendants simply as Mahdis, viceroys to guide and direct the
people of Islam until the day came for the concealed Imam to be revealed
again.
After the Fatimid claims had been laid before the world the ʿAbbasids
brought forward many calumnies (Maq. i., 349). The strongly anti-Fatimid
Ibn Khallikan relates a story that when the first Fatimid Khalif to
enter Egypt, al-Moʿizz, came to Cairo, the jurist, Abu Muhammad ibn
Tabataba, came to meet him, supported by a number of undoubted members
of ʿAli’s family, and asked to see his credentials. Al-Moʿizz then drew
his sword and cried, “Here is my pedigree”: and scattering gold amongst
the by-standers added, “And this is my proof.” The story is an improbable
legend, and even Ibn Khallikan rejects it on the ground that when
al-Moʿizz entered Cairo, Abu Muhammad the jurist (d. 348) had been many
years in his grave (Ibn Khall. iii., 366).
The weakest part of the Fatimid claim, as we have remarked, lies in the
great diversity of forms the claim takes in different writers. When
ʿUbayd Allah or Saʿid, ʿAbdullah’s great-grandson, established himself
in Africa, the genealogy began to call for serious attention, and came
to be examined, not by uncritical members of the sect, but by all the
historians and genealogists of the Muslim world. It then appeared in no
less than nine divergent forms.
(1) Traced through Jaʿfar as-Sadiq the sixth Imam, then through
his son Ismaʿil, his son Muhammad “the concealed,” then Jaʿfar
al-Musaddiq—Muhammad al-Habib—and then ʿUbayd Allah. Thus Maqrizi and
Ibn Khaldun. According to this ʿAbdullah and Ahmad do not appear in the
descent at all.
(2) Traced through Jaʿfar to Muhammad “the concealed” as in the
preceding, then ʿAbdullah ar-Rida (the accepted of God),—Ahmad al-Wafi
(the perfect),—al-Husayn at-Taki (the pious),—and ʿUbayd Allah the Mahdi.
This appears in Ibn Khallikan and Ibn Khaldun, and seems to have been
more or less the official version. According to this ʿAbdullah, the
father of Ahmad, was the son of Mohammad “the concealed,” not of Maymun.
Similarly the pro-Fatimid author of the _Dastur al-Munajjimin_ (MS. of M.
Schefer, cited by de Goeje, _Qarmates_, pp. 8-9), who says that Muhammad
b. Ismaʿil took refuge in India; he had six sons, Jaʿfar, Ismaʿil, Ahmad,
Husayn, ʿAli, and ʿAbdu r-Rahman, but does not mention ʿAbdullah nor say
which of these sons was the Imam: he then refers to the three “mysterious
ones” as succeeding Muhammad. Tabari (iii., 2218, 12) says that Muhammad
b. Ismaʿil had no son named ʿAbdullah.
(3) As before, but Maymun as son of Muhammad “the concealed,” then
ʿAbdullah—Muhammad—Ubayd Allah; thus in Abu l-Feda. Maymun is made
the son of the seventh Imam (which is impossible), and the Mahdi is
represented as ʿAbdullah’s grandson (see below).
(4) Ismaʿil, son of Jaʿfar,—Muhammad “the
concealed,”—Ismaʿil,—Ahmad,—Ubayd Allah. This also occurs in Abu l-Feda,
and in ʿUbayd Allah’s “Genealogy of the ʿAlids” (MS. Leiden, 686—cited
by de Goeje, _Qarmates_, p. 9) Muhammad had three sons, Ismaʿil II,
Jaʿfar, and Yahya; Ismaʿil had a son named Ahmad, who dwelt in the
Maghrab.
(5) Ismaʿil—Muhammad “the concealed,”—Ismaʿil
II,—Muhammad,—Ahmad,—ʿAbdullah,—Muhammad,—Husayn,—Ahmad or
ʿAbdullah,—Ubayd Allah the Mahdi. This is the genealogy given in the
sacred books of the Druses, and rests on the theory that there must
have been seven “concealed Imams” intervening between Jaʿfar as-Sadiq
and the Mahdi. It is merely an instance of the mystic value attached
to the sacred numeral. Like (3) it gives Muhammad for Ahmad which is a
permissible variant.
(6) The five preceding genealogies are distinctively Ismaʿilian in
character, but there are others which show adaptations of the “Twelvers”
accounts, and these cannot be much more than later attempts to connect
the Fatimid line with that recognised by the other Shiʿites. First we
have the idea that the descent from Jaʿfar as-Sadiq was through Musa,
not Ismaʿil, then following the next three Imams ʿAli ar-Rida—Muhammad
al-Jawad—ʿAli al-Hadi (see above)—al-Hasan al-Askari—Ubayd Allah the
Mahdi. According to this the Fatimite Mahdi in Africa was the son of the
eleventh Imam of the “Twelvers,” and thus replaced Muhammad al-Muntazar.
(7) The same line as the preceding, but admitting Muhammad al-Muntazar
as twelfth Imam who “disappeared” in 260, and asserting that ʿUbayd
Allah who appeared in North Africa was this same Muhammad emerging from
concealment, after an interval of 29 years.
(8) The same line as far as ʿAli al-Hadi, then Husayn, presumably a
brother of Hasan al-Askari, and ʿUbayd Allah as son of this Husayn.
This is given by Ibn Khallikan on the authority of a reference in Ibn
al-Athir. All these three last genealogies must be dismissed as later
suggestions since it is clear that the Ismaʿilian sect rejected the Imams
of the “Twelvers” after Jaʿfar as-Sadiq: but it may be that Ahmad’s first
claim was simply to be an ʿAlid, and not necessarily the son of the house
of Ismaʿil.
(9) Finally we have another theory, mentioned by Ibn Khallikan, that the
Mahdi was descended from Hasan, a brother of Jaʿfar as-Sadiq, and so an
ʿAlid but not an Imam, and from this Hasan came ʿAbdullah, Ahmad, Hasan,
and then ʿAli or ʿUbayd Allah the Mahdi. Back to ʿAbdullah this was
the generally asserted genealogy of the Mahdi’s family, but Hasan, the
brother of Jaʿfar, replaces Maymun.
The chief point is that there were so many alternative forms of the
genealogy, and close scrutiny shows very weak points in every one
of them. To the fully initiated this was a very small matter, as no
importance was attached to the claim to the Imamate or to the descent
from ʿAli at all. No doubt all these pedigrees served their purpose in
dealing with the different types of proselytes, and their very diversity
tends to prove that they were actually accepted and circulated in a sect
which adapted its teachings to suit the opinions of the different classes
with which it came into contact. It was not until the Fatimids became a
political power that any need was felt to bring these various genealogies
into any kind of agreement, and then, no doubt, the variant forms
circulated by the different missionaries were a source of embarrassment.
III
THE QARMATIANS
We turn now to the formation of the important branch of the Ismaʿilian
sect known as the Qarmatians, which is particularly interesting as we
have detailed accounts of its formation which show how the propaganda
worked, and illustrate the ease with which an armed group could set up an
independent robber state in this period of the decay of the Khalifate. Of
the history of their founding there are two leading narratives slightly
divergent in details,—which De Goeje (pp. 13-17) calls A. and B. A. given
by De Sacy (_Druses_, pp. clxvi., etc.) is that of Nuwayri, who drew his
information from Akhu Muhsin, who obtained it from Ibn Razzam, and the
substance, drawn from the same sources, appears in the _Fihrist_. B.
(in De Sacy clxxi., etc.) is really the account given by Tabari, and is
based on the description given by a person who had been present at the
examination of Zaqruyah the Qarmatian by Muhammad b. Dawud b. al-Jarrah.
The A. account is as follows.
One of Ahmad’s missionaries named Husayn Ahwazi was sent to labour in the
district of Kufa known as the Sawad. As he was travelling he met a man
named Hamdan b. Ashhath al-Qarmati, who was leading an ox with forage
on its back. Husayn asked him the way to a place named Kass-Nahram, and
Hamdan replied that he was going there himself. Then Husayn asked him
where was a place named Dawr, and Hamdan told him that was his home. So
they went on together. Then Hamdan says: “You seem to have come a long
way and to be very tired: get on this ox of mine.” But Husayn declined,
saying that he had not been told to do so. Hamdan remarked: “You speak
as though you acted according to the orders which some one had given
you.” Husayn admitted that this was so. “And who,” Hamdan asked, “it
is then from whom you receive these orders and prohibitions?” Husayn
replied: “It is my master and yours, the master of this world and of the
world to come.” After some reflection Hamdan said: “There is only God
most High who is master of all things.” “True,” replied Husayn, “but God
entrusts control to whom he pleases.” Hamdan then asked, “What do you
intend to do in the village to which you have asked to be directed?”
“I am going,” said Husayn, “to bring to many people who dwell there a
knowledge of the secrets of God. I have received orders to water the
village, to enrich the inhabitants, to deliver them, and to put them in
possession of their masters’ goods.” Then he began to persuade Hamdan to
embrace his teaching. Hamdan said: “I beseech you in the name of God to
reveal to me what you possess of this wisdom: deliver it to me, and God
will deliver you.” “That,” said Husayn, “is a thing I cannot do, unless
I previously get from you an undertaking and bind you in the name of God
by a promise as an oath like that which God has always exacted from his
prophets and apostles. After that I shall be able to tell you things
which will be useful to you.” Hamdan continued to urge, and at last
Husayn gave way, and as they sat by the roadside Husayn administered the
oath to him and asked his name. Hamdan replied that he was commonly known
as the _Qarmat_, and invited Husayn to take up his abode with him. So
Husayn went to his house and gained many converts from Hamdan’s kinsmen
and neighbours. There he stayed for some time, arousing in his host and
others the strongest admiration of the ascetic and pious life he led,
fasting by day, and watching by night. He worked as a tailor, and it was
generally felt that the garments which had passed through his hands were
consecrated. When the date harvest came a learned and wealthy citizen
of Kufa named Abu ʿAbdullah Muhammad b. ʿUmar b. Shabab Adawi, hearing
good reports of him, made him guardian of his date garden, and found him
scrupulous in his attention and honesty. Husayn revealed his doctrines
to this employer, but he saw through the piety which had impressed the
villagers and understood that he was a conspirator. Before his death
Husayn appointed Hamdan as _daʿi_ in his place. This is an outline of the
narrative of the origin of the Qarmatians, so called as the followers of
Hamdan the Qarmat, according to the Sherif Abu l-Hasan as reported in the
history of Nuwayri.
Gregory Bar Hebraeus gives a different account which appears also in
Bibars Mansuri and in another part of Nuwayri who cites the authority
of Ibn Athir, and this is the second account which de Goeje calls B.
According to it a Persian of Khuzistan established himself in the Nahrayn
or district between the rivers, near Hufa, and soon drew attention by
the asceticism and piety of his life. When anyone went and sat by him
he used to discourse about religion and try to induce his hearers to
renounce the world; he taught that it was a matter of obligation to
pray fifty times a day, and that it was his office to guide men to the
true Imam whose abode he knew. Some merchants purchased the produce of
the garden in which this recluse had taken up his abode, and enquired
for a trustworthy watchman to look after their property. The gardener
introduced the recluse to them, and they gave him charge of the produce.
When they came to take away their dates they paid the watchman, and he,
on his part, paid the gardener for the dates supplied to him, deducting
a rebate for the stones. The merchants saw this reckoning going on, and
supposed that he had been selling some of their dates, so they struck
him, saying, “Is it not enough that you have eaten our dates?—is it for
you also to sell the stones?” The gardener then spoke up and told them
the facts, and when they perceived their error they made their apologies
and conceived a very high opinion of his rectitude and probity. Some
time later he fell ill, and the gardener sent for a certain villager
commonly known as _Qaramita_, a word which in the Nabataean language
means a man with red eyes. This villager’s real name is not given, but
Tabari adds that Muhammad b. Dawud b. al-Jarrah said to someone that he
was called Hamdan. He was an owner of oxen which were used to carry the
produce of Sawad to the city of Kufa. He took the sick man to his house
and there the devotee stayed until he was quite well, and whilst there
taught the Qaramita the doctrines of the sect to which he belonged,
and also instructed the villagers. From amongst his converts he chose
twelve _nakibs_, in imitation of Moses and Jesus, and sent them out as
missionaries. He required his followers to pray fifty times a day, and as
a result the work of the villagers fell into arrears. A certain Haysam
who possessed property in the village perceived this and made enquiry
as to the reason; this led him into contact with the devotee who was
induced to reveal to him his peculiar doctrines. Haysam perceived their
subversive character and took him to Kufa where he locked him up in his
house, but a female servant who was moved by the captive’s apparent
piety stole the key and set him free. In the morning the room was found
empty, and this was reported as a miracle. Soon afterwards the devotee
re-appeared to the villagers and told them that he had been set free by
angels, and then he escaped to Syria. After his departure the Qaramata
continued to preach and expand the doctrines which he had learned, and
in this was assisted by the other nakibs. According to Ibn Athir, cited
by Nuwayri, this Qaramat or Hamdan was a man who “affected a religious
life, detached from the world and mortified,” and “when anyone joined his
sect Hamdan took a piece of gold from him, saying that it was for the
Imam. From them (_i.e._, his followers) he chose twelve _nakibs_ whom he
charged to call men to his religion, saying that they were the apostles
of Isa b. Maryam.”
The A. text refers to Husayn’s death, the B. text says that he went to
Syria. Tabari speaks of the devotee as coming from Khuzistan, but Akhu
Muhsin says that he was sent by Ahmad from Salamiya. De Goeje (p. 18)
suggests that he may have been Ahmad’s son Husayn. According to the
_Kitab al-Oyun_ (MS. Berlin, 69—cited by de Goeje) Saʿid, the son of
Husayn, the son of Ahmad, the son of ʿAbdullah, was born at Salamiya
in 259 or 260. But evidently there is some error here. Husayn was the
grandson, not the son, of Abdullah, and the head of the sect did not
leave Askar Mokram before 266: probably not until after the repression
of the slave rebellion in 270. No open revolt of the Qarmatians took
place until 286.