A Short History of the Fatimid Khalifate

by De Lacy O'Leary

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).