A Short History of the Fatimid Khalifate

by De Lacy O'Leary

There can be no doubt that he was a perfectly earnest reformer, so far as his knowledge extended, and that some of his experiments were rash and unsuccessful does not detract from his personal sincerity. One of his first measures was to sell the government stores of corn at the lowest current prices, thus bringing down the price of corn throughout the country and forcing the merchants to put their stock upon the market at prices which suited the people. Incidentally this involved a severe loss to the revenue, and, a more serious result, there was nothing available when soon afterwards a bad Nile produced general scarcity, so the country had again an experience of famine and then of plague. In these circumstances he appealed to the Greek Emperor, Constantine Monomachos, and arrangements were made for a supply of some two million bushels which eased the situation. For several seasons when the Niles were bad this assistance continued until Constantine died in 447. The next Greek ruler, the Empress Theodora, tried to drive a harder bargain and stipulated for a full alliance, defensive and offensive, as the price. To this the wazir was not willing to agree, for shortage in Egypt might not happen every year, whilst such an alliance would be permanent. As a result the supplies were stopped and minor hostilities took place in the neighbourhood of Antioch. The stoppage was not of great importance as next year there was an exceptionally good Nile and Egypt was filled with abundance. Taught by experience the wazir bought freely and laid up stores for next year’s possible requirements. At the same time he took active measures to prevent money-lenders seizing the standing crops or merchants buying the unreaped corn as it stood at a low figure, and so protected the thriftless people from the wrongs which had most preyed upon them in the past.

In his dealings with the Copts he was harsh. Again as in the anti-Christian legislation of Hakim we observe the great unpopularity of those who were hereditary tax-collectors and who were suspected, no doubt with excellent reason, of defrauding the revenue. The strict organization introduced under the first Fatimid Khalif had been allowed to grow slack, its continuance meant constant effort and unceasing supervision, and this sustained effort hardly lies within the oriental character. As wazir Yazuri himself amassed great wealth, far beyond what could possibly have come to him from the regular emoluments of his office: a certain amount of perquisites, of a kind which the western would be inclined to describe as bribery, is known and tolerated in oriental administration and Yazuri, a minister who must be regarded as a good and beneficent ruler in spite of this, was not the one to take a high ground of morality in such matters. He imprisoned the Patriarch Christodoulos whom he accused of persuading the Nubian king to withhold tribute, a charge which does not seem to have had any foundation; then laid heavy fines on the whole Coptic community, no less a sum than 70,000 dinars, and closed churches until none were left in use, and imprisoned the bishops, all it would appear in the attempt to make the Copts pay up the fine or, as Yazuri would no doubt have described it, to disgorge some part of their plunder filched from the public revenue. It does not seem that there was any sectarian motive or feeling in these measures, although they are sometimes made to figure as religious persecution.

In 450 Yazuri died, poisoned by order of the Queen Mother with the consent of the Khalif. The ostensible charge was that he had been detected in treasonable correspondence with the court of Baghdad, but the real reason seems to have been that his inordinate wealth, which could only have been attained by defrauding the public revenue on a gigantic scale, had awakened jealousy and suspicion.

It is interesting to turn aside for a moment to the Persian poet Nasir-i-Khusraw, who visited Cairo in the years just preceding the ministry of Yazuri and who left a most graphic account of the wealth and splendour of the Fatimid court and the prosperity of Cairo even at that period of comparative disorder. In the eyes of this traveller, familiar with the most prosperous and cultured cities of Persia and ʿIraq, the magnificence of Cairo and its court seemed astonishing, and exactly the same impression was made years afterwards, after the Fatimids had long passed the zenith of their glory, on the Crusaders from the west. Under Fatimid rule, apparently, Cairo surpassed all the cities of the then known world in its luxury, magnificence, and wealth. As we have already noted ostentatious display was the besetting fault of the whole Fatimid dynasty, but this, it must be remembered, is usually popular in oriental circles. Nasir-i-Khusraw was a devout Ismaʿilian and regarded Cairo as the metropolis of his religion and the Khalif as the true Imam, religious beliefs which he expresses freely in his works. He was a secretary under the government in Khurasan until he experienced a conversion to the religious life and, resigning his office, became first a pilgrim and then a daʿi of the Ismaʿilian sect. In his best known work the Safarnama he describes how, after he had turned to religion, he set out for Mecca in 437, and relates the experiences of his journey. He reached Mecca in 439 and returned thence to Damascus, then went to Jerusalem, and then by land to Cairo where he remained two or three years, and during his stay was initiated into the higher grades of the Ismaʿilian fraternity. As his work was intended for general reading he is cautious in referring to the more intimate matters of religion, but makes it quite clear that he believes in the allegorical interpretation of the Qurʾan, that he accepts the Fatimid Khalif as the true Imam, and adheres whole-heartedly to the doctrines of the Fatimite sect. He gives a most glowing description, not only of the splendours; of the Cairene court, but of the extraordinary wealth and prosperity of the bazars and their merchants, and this at a time (circ. 440) which we generally regard as one of the less fortunate periods of Fatimid rule. It is particularly interesting to note his observations on the Egyptian army at the time when its factions were at the bottom of all the domestic troubles of Cairo. He estimates the whole army as about 215,000 men. Of the cavalry 35,000 came from North Africa, Berbers and Arabs, 50,000 were Arabs from the Hijaz, and 30,000 were of mixed composition. Of the infantry, where the racial elements are more significant, 20,000 were black troops raised in North Africa, 30,000 were Ethiopians by which we must understand Nubians, Sudanis, etc., 10,000 were Syrians, Turks and Kurds, 30,000 were slaves presumably from central Africa for the most part, and 10,000 are described as the “palace guard,” which seems to have been a kind of foreign legion of adventurers from various parts of Africa, Asia, and Europe. We shall have to return again to Nasir-i-Khusraw, for after leaving Cairo he became a daʿi of the Ismaʿilians in western Asia, and indirectly played an important part in the formation of the off-shoot of the Ismaʿilians, which afterwards became notorious as the “Assassins.”

Yazuri’s wazirate saw a great limitation of Fatimid control over North Africa, where in 443 Ifrikiya definitely repudiated the Shiʿite doctrines. At that time the ruler of Ifrikiya settled now at the town of Mahadiya which had replaced Kairawan, was Muʿizz al-Himyari as-Sanhaji, the hereditary chieftain of one of the more prominent Berber tribes, and more or less hereditary governor of Ifrikiya. Hakim had conferred on him robes of state with the title Sharaf ad-Dawla (“nobleness of the empire”) in 407. Up to this time the Hanifite system of canon law had prevailed through North Africa, for the Shiʿite attempt to introduce the system ascribed to Jaʿfar as-Sadiq seems to have been a failure, but Muʿizz introduced the Malikite jurisprudence throughout his governorate; this, it will be remembered, was the system banned by the Khalif az-Zahir in Egypt, and by thus acting Moʿizz showed very plainly his entire disregard of the Fatimid who claimed to be his suzerain. Now, in 433, Muʿizz formally repudiated Fatimid authority, omitting the name of Mustansir from the khutba, and replacing it with the name of the ʿAbbasid Khalif of Baghdad. At this Mustansir wrote: “Thou hast not trod in the steps of thy forefathers, showing us obedience and fidelity?”—but Muʿizz replied: “My father and forefathers were kings in Maghrab before thy predecessors obtained possession of that country. Our family rendered them services not to be rewarded by any rank which thou canst give. When people attempted to degrade them, they exalted themselves by means of their swords.” Thus the Fatimids lost what had been the earliest part of their dominions in Africa, although the loss was not without its benefit, for Ifrikiya had always been a course of trouble and of little real profit.

The defection of Ifrikiya was not followed in all parts of North Africa. There were still devoted Shiʿites in those parts, and they revolted from Moʿizz when the Fatimid sent the Arab tribe of Hilal to win back the country. The Arabs succeeded in recovering Barqa and Tripoli, but were unable to advance further west. At the same time various independent states, for the most part professing to be Shiʿite, arose in Maghrab.

In 448 the Turk, Tughril Beg, was recognised in Baghdad as the Sultan and lieutenant of the Khalif. The Saljuq Turks were strictly orthodox, and indeed at this time recognised themselves as the champions of orthodoxy. When, two years later, the general of the troops in Baghdad, a Turk named Arslan al-Basasiri, revolted against the Khalif al-Kaʾim and expelled him from Baghdad, he put the seal on his revolt by causing the khutba to be said throughout Mesopotamia in the name of the Fatimid al-Mustansir, and sent him his protestation of allegiance. The expelled ʿAbbasir Khalif took refuge with the Emir of the Arabs and stayed with him one year, and then the Saljuq Tughril Beg came to his relief, and having attacked and slain al-Basasiri, reinstated the ʿAbbasid in Baghdad. The Khalif made his entry into the city exactly one year after his expulsion, so that Fatimid al-Mustansir had just one year’s nominal recognition in Mesopotamia, but this cannot be seriously regarded as an extension of the Fatimid dominion.

The proclamation of the Fatimid Khalifate in Baghdad and the exile of the ʿAbbasid Khalif from his capital raised unduly high expectations in Egypt. The more so as the official robe and jewelled turban of the Baghdad Khalif, as well as the iron lectern, were carried off to Cairo, and remained there until the fall of the Fatimids. Al-Mustansir was confident that these symbols would be soon followed by the ʿAbbasid in person, and laid out a large sum, stated to be no less than two million dinars, in preparing the second palace which stood facing his own dwelling across the great square in Kahira for the occupation, as he hoped, of his illustrious captive.

In fact, however, the Fatimid Khalifate had already passed its happiest hours and was rapidly approaching its decline. The Arabs still held Tripoli and Barqa as subjects of Egypt, but this was the western limit of Fatimid rule and the death of Anushtakin had practically ended its authority in Syria.