persian historiography of the early nizārī ismāʿīlīs

British Institute of Persian Studies

Persian Historiography of the Early Nizārī IsmāʿīlīsAuthor(s): Farhad DaftarySource: Iran, Vol. 30 (1992), pp. 91-97Published by: British Institute of Persian StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299872 .

Accessed: 22/07/2014 16:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British Institute of Persian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iran.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.209.6.50 on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:11:41 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bips

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299872?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


PERSIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE EARLY NIZARI ISMAcILIS

By Farhad Daftary The Institute of Ismaili Studies, London

The Ismaflls, who originated as an independent ShiCi sect around the middle of the second/eighth century, represented an important religio-political movement in many parts of the Muslim world during the mediaeval times. The Ismi•ilis also made signifi- cant contributions to Islamic culture during their Fatimid "golden age". At various times in the course of their mediaeval history, especially during the so-called classical Fitimid period (297-487/909-1094) when

Ismacili thought and literature attained their summit, the renowned Isma'li dd'Cs or missionaries who were assigned to particular regions for propagating the

Isma'ili doctrines and winning new worthy converts, produced numerous treatises on theology, philosophy, jurisprudence and many other subjects.' But from early on, the learned Isma•ili ddier-authors, who were normally trained as theologians, were rarely interested in historical writing. The Qadi al-Nu'man (d.363/974), the organiser of the Ismacili system offiqh or jurisprudence and the most prolific author of the Fatimid period, produced only one historical work, the Iftitdh al-dacwa. This earliest historical work in the Ismicili literature, completed in 346/957, covers merely the immediate background to the establishment of the

Fatimid Caliphate.2 Furthermore, only one general history of Ismf'llism seems to have been written by an

Isma'ili author of the mediaeval times, namely, Idris CImad al-Din (d. 872/1468) who was the nineteenth

MustaCli-Tayyibi chief ddT"

in Yaman.3 The general lack of interest of the Isma'Tils in

historiography has, in no small measure, been due also to the hostile conditions under which the sectarians lived until more recent times. Ever since the opening phase of their history, when they were conducting a

revolutionary campaign for uprooting the cAbbasids, the Ismircilis have been persecuted by numerous major dynasties as well as many local rulers in the Muslim world, in addition to being depicted as maldhida or heretics by many other Muslim groups. Under such circumstances, the Ismacilis were often obliged to live

clandestinely, also adhering to the Shici principle of

taqiyya, precautionary dissimulation of one's true reli-

gious beliefs in the face of danger. As a result, Ism5ai- lism generally developed under utmost secrecy, and the

Ism~cili authors, who were mainly interested in theo-

logical and philosophical issues, were reluctant to

compile annalistic or other types of historical accounts. In sum, the Ismacilis were not prepared to divulge any factual details about their movement which, if fallen

into the hands of their enemies, might endanger the survival of their co-religionists in particular localities or jeopardise the highly secret activities of their ddcTs. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Ism'cilis have

generally lacked a tradition of historiography. In fact, from early on in the third/ninth century, the Ismacilis developed their own metahistorical notions and came to hold a particular conception of history, which may more appropriately be called hierohistory, representing an a priori sacral image of the past and a cyclical view of time and the religious history of mankind.

According to this cyclical prophetic conception, which was retained with various modifications as an integral component of the Ismacili gnosis until late mediaeval

times, the hierohistory of mankind proceeded through seven prophetic eras of different durations, each era or

cycle (dawr) inaugurated by a law-announcing, speaker-prophet or ndtiq, enunciating a revealed mess-

age which in its exoteric aspect contained a religious law (Sharf'a). The final, seventh era, marking the end of time and human history, would be initiated by the

QdJim or Mahdi who would usher in the qiyama or resurrection and then rule over the final eschatological era. The Qd'im as the seventh nd.tiq would not, however, announce a new religious law; in that final age of pure spiritualism, he would fully reveal the unchangeable esoteric truths concealed behind all the preceding messages, including those ofJudaism, Christianity and

Islam.4 There were, however, two exceptional periods in the

Ismfaili movement when the Ismacilis did particularly concern themselves with history in its traditional sense, and with historical writing; and they produced or commissioned works which may be regarded as official chronicles. It was only during those two periods, marking temporary traditions of Isma-ili historio-

graphy, that the IsmTcilis possessed states of their own, viz., the Fitimid Caliphate and the Nizari Isma•ili state centred at Alamfit in Persia. There were major differences between the two Ismc1ili states in question. The Fatimid state, ruled by the Ismacili imam, represented a vast empire with an elaborate administrative and ceremonial apparatus, which rival- led the cAbbasid Caliphate; while the Nizari state, ruled initially by ddCTs and later by the Nizari imams

themselves, was a simple though unique principality in the Muslim world, comprised of a host of mountain

strongholds and their surrounding villages as well as a few towns in scattered territories stretching from

91



92 JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES

eastern Persia to Syria. Nevertheless, in both instances, the Ismacili dacwa had brought about a dawla, and the

Ism5iilis had now come to possess their own dynasties of rulers and political events, which needed to be recorded by trustworthy chroniclers; authors, who unlike the majority of the mediaeval Muslim theolo-

gians, heresiographers, polemicists and historians, were not hostile towards the Ism5cilis and their cause. As a result, a host of authors, often belonging to the Isma•ili community, produced such histories of the Fitimid and Nizair states. Indeed, numerous official Fatimid chronicles, representing histories of the Fatimid dynasty and state and to some extent also of the

IsmaTili movement in F.timid

dominions, were com-

piled by contemporary Ism5cili and non-Ismicili authors like al-Musabbihi (d. 420/1029). These

Fitimid chronicles, compiled at different times, especially after the transference of the seat of the Fatimid Caliphate from Ifriqiya to Egypt in 362/973, did not survive the collapse of the Fatimid dynasty in 567/ 1171, when Egypt rapidly returned to the fold of Sunni Islam during the ensuing Ayyuibid period. The Ayyubids systematically destroyed the renowned Fatimid libraries at Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt and severely persecuted the Ismacilis there. Under similar

tragic circumstances, the Ismi•ili literature, including the official chronicles, produced by the early Persian Nizari Ismdcilis, too, has perished almost completely, though some of this literature remained extant for some time after the collapse of the Nizari Ismdcili state in Persia in 654/1256. It is the purpose of this article to investigate the nature of the Persian historical writings on the Nizari Ismcllis of Persia and their state during the Alamfit period (483-654/1090-1256), produced by contemporary Nizari authors, and a group of near-

contemporary non-Ismi•ili Muslim historians who, in fact, are our most important sources on the subject.

On the death of al-Mustansir bi'llah, in 487/1094, a

major schism occurred in the Ism•cili movement con- cerning the succession to the imamate. Al-Mustansir, the eighth Fatimid caliph and the eighteenth Ismacili imam, had already designated his eldest son Abui Mansfir Nizir as his successor by the rule of the nass. However, al-Afdal, who a few months earlier had succeeded his own father Badr al-Jamali as the all-

powerful vizier of the Fitimid state, had other plans. Aiming to retain the state reins in his own hands, al-Afdlal moved quickly and in what amounted to a palace coup d'6tat placed Nizar's much younger brother Ahmad on the FStimid throne with the title of

al-Mustacli billah. Al-Afdal immediately obtained for al-Mustacli the allegiance of the notables of the Fitimid state and the leaders of the Isma•ili dacwa at Cairo. Refusing to pay homage to al-Mustacli, the dispossessed Nizar fled to Alexandria, where he briefly led a revolt with the help of the local inhabitants. By the end of 488/1095, however, al-Afdal had effectively

subdued this revolt and Nizar had been executed. These events caused the permanent Niziri-MustaCli split in IsmiCilism. Al-Mustacli was acknowledged as his father's successor by the Egyptian Ismacills, many Syrian Ism5iflis, and by the whole Ism•cili community in Yaman and that in western India dependent on it. These Isma•ilis, who were under the direct influence of the Fatimid regime, now accepted al-Mustacli as their nineteenth imam and henceforth became known as the

Mustacliyya or Mustaclawiyya. By contrast, the

Ism•cilis of the Saljuq dominions, notably those of Persia and Iraq and a faction of Syrian Isma•ilis, refused to recognise the ninth Fitimid caliph al- Mustacli as their next imam. These eastern Ismi•ilis, upholding al-Mustansir's original nass, acknowledged Nizar as their nineteenth imam and became known as the NizSriyya. The Nizaris, who had already launched an open revolt against the Saljuqs, completely severed their relations with the Fatimid regime and the head-

quarters of the Fatimid dacwa in Cairo. The eastern

Isma-clis, led by the Persian community, had now in effect founded the independent Nizari dacwa and state, in rivalry with the Mustaclian dacwa which was sup- ported by the Fatimid regime.

A few years earlier, in 483/1090, the seizure of the mountain fortress of Alamfit in northern Persia by Hasan-i Sabbah had in fact marked the foundation of what was to become the Nizari Isma-cil state of Persia and Syria. At the same time, the IsmI•ilis of Persia had started an armed revolt against the alien rule of the

Saljuq Turks. The architect of this Nizari state and revolt as well as the founder of the independent Nizari dacwa was, indeed, the redoubtable Hasan-i Sabbah, who eventually became the supreme Niziri leader within the Saljuq Sultanate, while the NizSri im5ms succeeding Nizar remained inaccessible to their fol- lowers for several decades. As designed by

H.asan-i Sabbih, the Nizdiri revolt against the Saljuqs was based on the seizure and construction of impregnable mountain strongholds and on the political assassination of the prominent enemies of the Nizaris at the hands of the sect's fidd'is, self-sacrifising devotees. Such a

strategy was dictated by overwhelming military superi- ority of the Saljuqs and their decentralised power structure. At any rate, the Persian Nizaris soon came to

possess a network of fortresses in three separate ter-

ritories, notably, Ruidbar, situated in the mediaeval

Caspian region of Daylam; Qiimis, with its main fortress of Girdkih; and Quhistin, in southeastern Khurasan, where the Nizaris controlled also several towns. By the opening years of the sixth/twelfth century, the Persian Nizaris had already extended their activities also to Syria. A continuous chain of ddf-s, despatched from Alamfit, organised and led the Nizari dacwa and community in Syria. The Syrian Niziris, who came to possess their own network of fortresses, remained a subsidiary of the Persian Nizairi state. It



PERSIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE EARLY NIZARI ISMACiLiS 93

was only under Rashid al-Din Sinan (d. 589/1193), their greatest leader, who was known to the Crusaders as the "Old Man of the Mountain", that the Syrian Nizarlis temporarily acquired a certain degree of

independence from Alamfit.5 The Nizari IsmaCili state, whose territories were

separated from one another by long distances, maintained a remarkable cohesion and sense of unity both internally and against the outside world. This state had its supreme central ruler, who normally resided at

Alamuit and acted as an independent territorial amTr, as well as its own mint.6 The rulers of the Niz5ri state, also acting as the central leaders of the NizSri dacwa and community, were Hasan-i Sabbah and his seven successors, who are commonly referred to as the lords (Persian singular, khuddvand) of Alamfit. During the earliest phase in the history of Nizrir Ismacilism, known as the dawr al-satr or period of concealment

(488-557/1095-1162), when the Nizari imams remained hidden,

H.asan-i Sabbah (d. 518/1124) and

his next two successors led the Niz5ris as dd•zs, and

hujjas or full representatives, of the absent imam. Starting with Hasan II Cala dhikrihi 'l-salim (557-61/1162-6), the fourth lord of Alamut, however, the Nizdiri imamate became manifest and the imams themselves now took personal charge of the affairs of the Nizari dacwa, state and community, handing down the leadership on a hereditary basis.

The Persian Niziris of the Alamfit period experienced many political and doctrinal vicissitudes in the course of their history of some 166 years. They withstood numerous massacres and military campaigns directed against them by the Saljuqs and many other adversaries. They also participated in many local alliances and conflicts in Syria, the Caspian region and eastern Persia. For a brief period in the reign ofJalal al-Din Hasan III (607-18/1210-21), the sixth lord of

Alamfit, the Nizaris even adhered outwardly to Sunn- ism and successfully achieved a rapprochement with the Sunni world. As a result, the perennial hostilities between the Nizaris and the larger Muslim community were now set aside, and the Nizaris came to play an active part in the important alliances of the CAbbasid

caliph al-Nasir. The Nizari state in Persia finally collapsed in 654/1256 under the onslaught of the all-

conquering Mongols; and the eighth and last lord of

Alamfit, Rukn al-Din Khurshah, was killed in Mongol captivity in the following year somewhere in

Mongolia. The Syrian Nizaris, who had escaped the tragic fate of their Persian co-religionists, were completely subdued by 671/1273 at the hands of the Mamluk sultan Baybars I. Nizari Ismacilism was from the very beginning also associated with certain doctrinal developments, subsequently designated by the outsiders as the new preaching (al-daCwa al-jadfda), in contradistinction to the old preaching (al-dacwa al-qadima) of Faitimid Isma'cilism, the common doc-

trinal heritage of both the Niziriyya and the

Mustacliyya. The Nizaris were highly disciplined and

always readily followed the commands of their leaders and imams, who elaborated and interpreted their doctrines in the face of changing circumstances. Thus the Nizaris accepted without questioning any changes of policy proclaimed at Alamfit. The Nizari com-

munity of the Alamfit period was, indeed, charac- terised by a strong sense of solidarity and mission and

by the absence of any type of internal dissent.

Being preoccupied with their survival in an

extremely hostile milieu, the Persian Nizaris who attained a generally limited level of literacy did not

produce any substantial volume of literature during the Alamfit period. Indeed, the Nizari community did not produce outstanding theologians comparable to the learned dd~c-authors of the Fatimid period and the later

dd'Tmu.tlaqs of the MustaCli-Tayyibi community in

Yaman. By contrast, the Persian Nizari community, which was often involved in long-drawn military entanglements, produced capable military personali- ties who also acted as commandants of the major strongholds and conducted limited dacwa activities as

dd•-s. Be it as it may, the meagre literary output of the Persian Nizaris was written in the Persian language, which was adopted by the Nizaris from the beginning of the Alamuit period as their religious language, an

unprecedented event in Persia since the Arab con-

quests. Under these circumstances, the Persian Nizaris did not develop any particular interest in copying and

studying the classical IsmTacili works of the Fatimid

times, which in due course came to be preserved mainly by the Mustaclian IsmaTilis. On the other hand, the Syrian NizFris, who produced their own literature in Arabic, preserved some of the Fatimid Ismacili treatises. However, the Syrian Nizari works were not translated into Persian in Persia, and similarly, the Persian Nizari works of the Alamit period were not translated into Arabic and thus remained inaccessible to the Syrian Nizari community.

The Nizari Ismacilis of the Alamit period did, nonetheless, engage in a certain amount of intellectual and literary activity. Hasan-i Sabbah, who was a learned theologian himself, founded a library at the castle of Alamfit, which in time became quite renowned for its Ismcicli and non-Ismacili collections of

religious manuscripts as well as its scientific tracts and instruments. Other Persian Nizari strongholds, too, especially in Quhistan, seem to have been equipped with libraries. The Persian Nizaris of the later Alamfit period also played an active part in the intellectual life of the time, acting as hosts to many outside scholars and theologians who now availed themselves of the Nizari libraries and patronage of learning. Amongst such Muslim scholars who lived and worked for extended periods in the Nizari strongholds of Quhistan and Ridbar, especially in the aftermath of the earliest




Mongol invasions, the most eminent was Nasir al-Din

al-Tisi (597-672/1201-74), a leading Muslim philos- opher and scientist of his time. Around the year 624/1227, al-Tuisi entered the service of Nisir al-Din CAbd al-Rahman b. Abi Mansuir (d. 655/1257), the learned muhtashim or local head of the QuhistanTi Nizaris. Al-Tfisi developed a close friendship with

Nisir al-Din, to whom he dedicated his great work on ethics, the Akhldq-i NJ.sirt. During his long stay of some three decades amongst the Nizairis, initially at different locations in Quhistin and finally at Alamit, al-Tuisi, who had then temporarily embraced Ismicilism, wrote numerous treatises, including several Ismic'ili works.7

The Nizaris of the Alamfit period produced a few doctrinal works, starting with Hasan-i Sabbih's Fusul-i arbaca ("The Four Chapters"), containing a reform- ulation of the old Shici doctrine of ta'lim or authorita- tive teaching in religion, which became the central doctrine of the earliest Nizdris.8 There was, furthermore, the unique corpus of al-Tuisi's Ismi•cil writings, including his Rawdat al-taslfm,9 completed in 640/1242 and representing the most detailed exposition of the Nizari Ismaicil teachings of the late Alamuft period. As noted, the early Persian Niziris, as a rare instance of its kind amongst the Ismicilis, also produced chronicles

recording the detailed history of the Persian Niziri state in terms of the reigns of the successive lords of

Alamfit, starting with the Sargudhasht-i Sayyidna which covered the life and times of Hasan-i Sabbih. These official chronicles, compiled by various Persian Nizari authors, were maintained at Alamfit and other Nizari strongholds in Rfidbir as well as in Quhistin, especially at Sartakht and Mu'minfibid. The available information on these Nizdri chronicles will be presen- ted later in this article. It is interesting to note here that the Syrian branch of the Nizari state did not develop a similar tradition of historiography during the Alamfit period and that the Syrian Nizairi authors of the time do not seem to have compiled any chronicles like those maintained in Persia, while the Persian chronicles contained only occasional references to the events of the Syrian Nizdiri community. On the other hand, the

contemporary, non-Ismicili Arab historians, who took some notice of the Syrian Niz-ris, ignored almost

completely the events of the Persian Nizdiri com-

munity. In Persia itself, it was only during the Ilkhinid period, after the collapse of the Nizdri state, that a number of Sunni historians concerned themselves

seriously with the Persian Nizaris of the Alamfit period and their state.

Hiulegui, entrusted by the Great Khan Mongke with the double task of destroying the Niziri Ismicili state of Persia and the CAbbisid Caliphate, entered Khurasan at the head of the main Mongol expedition in Rabic I 654/April 1256; and by Dhu I-Qacda 654/December 1256, when Alamfit surrendered to the Mongols, the Nizari state had been uprooted in Persia.

Only Lamasar, the second most important fortress in

Rfidbar, held out for a year longer, while Girdkfih resisted its Mongol besiegers as the last Nizairi military outpost in Persia until 669/1270. The Nizari strongholds of Ruidbir and Quhistain were pillaged and then completely or partially demolished by the invad-

ing Mongols during the year 654/1256, marking the end of the Nizairi state in Persia. The Mongols also put large numbers of Niziris to the sword in Persia, but

they did not succeed in totally extirpating the Persian

Nizairi community. The bulk of the literature produced by the Persian Nizfris during the Alamfit period, however, perished in the course of the Mongol invasions. Only a few important Nizfiri works, includ-

ing some of the official historical writings, did in various ways survive the Mongol destructions. These

Nizfiri works were seen and utilised extensively by a

group of Persian historians of the Tlkhainid period, notably, Juwayni, Rashid al-Din and Kfshani, who now compiled detailed historical accounts of the Persian Niziri commumity and state of the Alamfit period. Most of the Nizairi sources used by these Persian historians, including all the Nizfiri chronicles available to them, were lost soon after the first half of the eighth/fourteenth century. As a result, the same Persian historians have remained our most important authorities on the subject, not only because of their

proximity to the described events but also because of their use of contemporary Ismacili sources which are no longer extant.

cAli• al-Din Atfi-Malik Juwayni is the earliest historian of Mongol Persia to produce an account of the Persian NizFris of the Alamfit period. Born in

623/1226, Juwayni entered the service of the Mongols in his youth, and then, from 654/1256 until his death in

681/1283, continued in the service of Hulegii and his descendants in the Ilkhinid dynasty of Persia. Thus

Juwayni was an eye-witness of the Mongol invasions in

Persia, and he personally participated in the final events leading to the downfall of the Nizari Ismficili state there. Juwayni was with Hulegui when the

Mongols converged on Rfidbar in 654/1256, and laid

siege to the Nizari fortresses of Alamuit, Lamasar and

Maymfindiz. Having taken part in the final round of

negotiations between Hiulegii and Rukn al-Din

Khurshfh, the twenty-seventh Nizairi imaim and the last lord of

Alamfit, it was Juwayni who drew up the

Mongol yarligh or decree granting Khurshaih safe-

conduct from Maymfindiz. He was also responsible for composing the Fath-nadma or proclamation of victory, declaring the defeat and surrender of the Nizaris. Juwayni, furthermore, relates how, with Huilegfi's permission, he examined the celebrated Ismicili library at Alamfit, from where he selected many "choice books", before consigning to the flames those treatises which, in his view, related to the heresy and error of the Isma'ilis. Of the latter category, however, Juwayni



PERSIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE EARLY NIZARI ISMACILiS 95

preserved a number of works, including the Sargudh- asht-i Sayyidnd, which he quotes extensively.

Juwayni commenced the compilation of his history of the Mongols and their conquests, the TaDrikh-ijahan- gushdy, around the year 650/1252, when he visited

Mongke's court in Mongolia, and finally stopped working on it in 658/1260. Juwayni's account of the

NizSri state, added to the end of the third volume of his history, was thus committed to writing soon after the fall of Alamfit.'o Juwayni produced a complete account of Hasan-i Sabbah and his seven successors as the supreme leaders of the NizSri state, based on the

NizSri chronicles and other source materials, including some non-extant local histories of the Caspian region, which he found at Alamuit and possibly other Niziri strongholds. Juwayni's account of the Nizari state is

preceded by a section relating to the history of the

early Ismacilis and the Fatimid dynasty,"1 a pattern adopted also by Rashid al-Din and Kashani. As a Sunni historian and Mongol official aiming to please his master, Hiilegui, who had destroyed the Niziri state in Persia, Juwayni was extremely hostile towards the Ismacilis. Using an arsenal of invectives and

defamatory epithets against the Ismacilis throughout his narrative, Juwayni does not miss any opportunity to express his contempt for the Nizaris and their leaders.

Chronologically, the second chief Persian authority on the Nizrli state in Persia is Rashid al-Din Fadl Allih, the famous historian and statesman of the

Ilkhanid period. Born around 645/1247 into the Jewish faith and originally trained as a physician, Rashid al-Din converted to Islam at the age of thirty and rose in the service of the Mongol Tlkhans of Persia to the rank of vizier, which he held for almost twenty years until his execution in 718/1318. In 694/1295, the Ilkhan Ghizan commissioned Rashid al-Din to compile a detailed history of the Mongols and their conquests. It was at the request of Ghazan's brother and successor, Oljeytii, that Rashid al-Din expanded his already vast official history, the JamiCal-tawarTkh ("Collection of

Histories"), to cover the histories of all the important Eurasian peoples, including the Chinese, Indians, Jews, IsmScilis and Franks, with whom the Mongols had come into contact during their conquests. On its com-

pletion in 710/1310, Rashid al-Din's Jdmical-tawarTkh had, indeed, acquired the distinction of being the first

history of the world written in any language. Rashid al-Din's history of the Ismacilis, covering both the

Niztris and the earlier Ismacilis, was compiled as a part

of the second volume of the Jamical-tawarikh.l2 In completing his history of the Ismacilis in

710/1310, Rashid al-Din undoubtedly utilised Juwayni's work, copies of which were already numerous at that time, and which Radhid al-Din often follows closely. In addition, it is certain that Rashid al-Din had found direct access to other copies of the

Isma-ill sources used by Juwayni, along with some other sectarian texts and documents still extant at the time. These Ismacili sources must have originally belonged to the collections held at fortresses other than

Alamuit, or else they had been in the private collections of individual Nizairs. As it was one of the methods

adopted in compiling the Jdmical-tawarfkh, it is indeed

quite possible that Rashid al-Din had established personal contacts with some Nizxris who owned such

manuscripts. In this connection, it may be noted that Rashid al-Din's grandfather, Muwaffaq al-Dawla

Hamad5ani, as well as the latter's brother Ra'is al-Dawla, had been at Alamuit as guests for some time until the Mongol invasions. It is quite likely that

Muwaffaq al-Dawla, a learned man trained as a physician, who, like al-Tuisi, was subsequently received into

Hiilegii's service, might have come into the possession of some Ismacili works, in addition to developing friendly relations with the Nizaris. Be it as it may, Rashid al-Din quotes extensively from the NizFir chronicles of the Alamfit period, which he names, and he relates many details absent inJuwayni's account. In

addition, Rashid al-Din, always keen to locate the most reliable source materials, made a fuller and a more critical use of the general historical works available in Mongol Persia, also displaying a sense of

objectivity not found in any other Sunni historian

writing about the Ismicilis. In sum, Rashid al-Din's history of the Nizaris is much fuller and clearly less hostile than Juwayni's account.

Jamal al-Din Abu 'l-Qasim CAbd Allah b. CAli Kashini was the third and last of the major Persian historians of the Mongol period writing on the Nizari Isma-ilis. Few biographical details are known about this Shici chronicler who belonged to the famous Abfi Tahir family of potters from Kdshan and died around 736/1335. He was, as a secretary, in the service of the

Mongol Ilkhins Oljeytii, and Abfi SaCid (717-36/ 1317-35), the last effective member of the

IlkhSnid dynasty, who ordered Rashid al-Din's execution. It is also known that Kashani was associated with Rashid al-Din and participated in compiling sections of the

Jdmical-tawadrkh, although KSshani claims that he

himself was the real author of that work.13 Kashani

composed a few works, including a general history of the Muslim world until the Mongol invasions. The latter chronicle, the Zubdat al-tawdrfkh, dedicated to

Oljeyti, contains a section on the history of the

Ism•cilis, covering the early Ismacilis, the Fatimid dynasty and the events of the Nizari state in Persia.'4 Needless to add that, as in the cases of Juwayni and Rashid al-Din, the most important part of K5shini's Ismacili history relates to the early Persian Nizaris.

Kashani's history of the Ismicilis is very much similar to Rashid al-Din's account and is closely related to it. However, Kashani's version is fuller and it contains numerous details missing in Rashid al-Din. Kashani




also reproduces some Niziri documents not quoted by Rashid al-Din. It seems therefore that Kashani either had independent access to Rashid al-Din's IsmdiTli sources or perhaps utilised a longer version of Rashid al-Din's IsmaCili history which has not survived. It is also possible that Kashani's account is actually that same longer version compiled under the direction of Rashid al-Din.

Later Persian historians who devoted separate sections of various lengths to the NizFiris of the Alamiit period in their general histories, starting with Hamd

Allah Mustawfi Qazwini (d. after 740/1339-40),'" based their accounts mainly on Juwayni, and Rashid al-Din. Amongst such historians, NUir al-Din CAbd

Allih b. LutfAllah al-Bihdadini, better known as Hiafiz Abrui (d. 833/1430), produced the longest account of the Persian Nizari state in his universal history, the

Majmac al-tawdrfkh al-sultdniyya. This Sunni historian of the Timufrid period, who became the official chronicler in the court of Shaihrukh and wrote his vast universal history at the request of the Timufrid Baysunghur, followed Rashid al-Din's account very closely in his

history of the Ismacilis.l6 None of the later Persian historians had direct access to genuine Ism5cili sources of the Alamfit period, including the Nizrli chronicles which were evidently no longer extant in post-Mongol Persia; and, therefore, they do not add any new details to the earlier, major accounts of the Persian Nizdiris produced byJuwayni, Rashid al-Din and Kashani. In the meantime, mediaeval Persian historiography had continued to be hostile towards the Nizaris, perpetuat- ing aspects of the "black legend" about the Isma"Cilis and which had been fabricated by earlier Sunni historians and polemicists like Ibn Rizam; while the Crusaders and their occidental chroniclers had been

generating their own legendary accounts of the Nizairi Isma"ilis, who acquired the designation of "Assassins" in mediaeval Europe.

Under these circumstances, Juwayni, Rashid al-Din and Kashani have remained our principal authorities, despite their biases and distortions, on the early Persian

Niziri Ismaiilis. Unlike Juwayni, who normally does not cite his Niziri chronicles, Rashid al Din and Kashani reveal important details on the historical

writings of the Persian Nizairis during the Alamfit period. All three authorities, however, name the

Sargudhasht-i Sayyidnd as their main source for Hasan-i Sabbah's biography.17 This work, the first part of which may have been autobiographical, also contained a detailed account of the major events of Hasan-i Sabbih's rule as the first lord of Alamfit and, as such, it may be regarded as the first official chronicle compiled by the Persian Nizairis. Rashid al-Din and Kaishaini mention another anonymous Nizari chronicle, Kitab-i Buzurg-Ummld, which was utilised extensively for their accounts of the reign of Kiyai Buzurg-Ummid (518-32/1124-38), the second lord of Alamfit.'8 Both

Rashid al-Din and Kashani also make explicit references to a Nizari history compiled by a certain Dihkhuda CAbd al-Malik b. CAli Fashandi, which was used as their sole source for the events pertaining to the first part of the reign of Muhammad b. Buzurg- Ummid (532-57/1138-62), the third lord of Alamuft.19 No details are available on this Persian Nizari chronicler, except that Buzurg-Ummid evidently had

designated him as the commander (kutval) of

Maymiindiz after that fortress began to be constructed in 520/1127.20 In writing the second part of

Muhammad b. Buzurg-Ummid's reign, both historians utilised yet another Nizari chronicle, the

Ta'rZkh of RaiTs Hasan Saldh (al-Din) Munshi, written in the time of Shihib al-Din Mansfir.2' Shihib al-Din was the muhtashim or chief ddC" of the Nizirls of

Quhistan during the earlier decades of the seventh/ thirteenth century and died soon after 644/1246. Ra'Ts Hasan, a native of Birjand in Quhistan, was also a poet and a secretary or munshf in the service of Shihib al-Din, who was a learned man himself.22 Ra'is Hasan rose to a high secretarial post in Nizairi Quhistan and was entrusted with writing Shihib al-Din's reply to certain questions put to the muhtashim by Nasir al-Din

al-Tuisi who, in his spiritual autobiography, refers to Ra is Hasan with the honorific epithet of malik al-kuttdb.23 This correspondence dates to the earliest

years of the reign of CAldf al-Din Muhammad III

(618-53/1221-55), the penultimate lord of Alamuit. Ralis Hasan probably wrote his Ta'rTkh around the same time, in the early 620s/1220s.

For the reigns of the last five lords of Alamiit (557-654/1162-1256), who were recognised as imims by the Nizari community, Rashid al-Din and Kashani do not name any specific chronicle, although the sections in question were evidently based on further Nizari chronicles in addition to oral sectarian traditions.24 Rashid al-Din and Kashani also utilised and

paraphrased Hasan-i Sabbaih's theological writings as well as a number of the so-called fusiyl (singular, fasl), decrees or epistles, issued by the Nizairi imams of the

Alamuit period, notably Hasan II Cali dhikrihi 'l-salim and his son and successor Nfir al-Din Muhammad II

(561-607/1166-1210), the fourth and fifth lords of

Alamfit, who reigned during the period of the qgydma when the Nizairis enjoyed spiritual resurrection.25 Kashani has preserved long quotations from some of these fusul, which are not reproduced in Rashid al-Din's account.26 Juwayni, too, makes frequent references to these fusul and similar documents, representing important archival materials.27

It is, indeed, due to the information provided by Rashid al-Din and Kaishani, who lived in the richest

period of Persian historical writing and also had access to an important corpus of Ismaiili sources, that we owe our knowledge of the temporary tradition of Nizairi historiography which had existed in Persia during the



PERSIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE EARLY NIZARY ISMACILiS 97

Alamut period. This rare tradition in the history of the

Ismacili movement was discontinued on the collapse of the Persian Niziri state in 654/1256, while the direct results of that tradition seem to have disappeared completely in Mongol Persia. Subsequently, the devastated and disorganised Persian Niziris were once again obliged to live clandestinely, observing the stric- test form of taqiyya, for at least two centuries. During these obscure early post-Alamilt centuries, the Nizaris of different parts of Persia, who often sought refuge under the mantle of Stifism, did not engage in literary

activities. From the early Safawid times, when Shicism in general received the protection of the state in Persia, the Persian Nizari community began to assert its

identity more openly and a new type of Nizari literature began to appear. But the Persian Nizari works of the Safawid and later times were, once again, almost exclusively doctrinal, often permeated also by SUifi and poetic forms of expression.28 The Mongols had, indeed, irrevocably brought to a close the political power of the Persian NizSris and that community's Alamuiti tradition of historiography.

See W. Ivanow, Ismaili Literature: a Bibliographical Survey (Tehran, 1963), and Ismail K. Poonawala, Biobibliography of IsmdFTll Literature (Malibu, California, 1977).

2 Abui Hanifa al-Nucmin b. Muhammad, Risdlat iftitdh al-da'wa, ed. W. al-Qadi (Beirut, 1970); also edited by F. Dachraoui (Tunis, 1975). The d•'T Idris produced several historical works dealing with the history of Ism'iclism in Yaman, but his major history of the Ismi'ili movement was a seven-volume work entitled the cUyfun al-akhbdr wa-funain al-dthdr; volumes IV-VI of this history, carrying the narrative from the earliest period to the time of the FStimid caliph-imim al-Mustansir, were edited by the late Niziri scholar Mustafa Ghilib (Beirut, 1973-8).

4See H. Corbin, Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis (London, 1983), pp. 30-58; Paul E. Walker, "Eternal Cosmos and the Womb of History: Time in Early Ismaili Thought", IJMES, IX (1978), pp. 355-66; W. Madelung, "Aspects of Ismicili Theology: the Prophetic Chain and the God Beyond Being", in IsmdTrl Contribu- tions to Islamic Culture, ed. S. H. Nasr (Tehran, 1977), pp. 51-65, and F. Daftary, The Ismta'lfs: Their History and Doctrines (Cam- bridge, 1990), pp. 139 ff., 177-8, 218-19, 234, 236-9, 244, 291 ff., 393-4, 410-11.

' For modern surveys of Nizdri history during the Alamft period, see Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Order of Assassins (The Hague, 1955), pp. 37-278; idem, "The Ismicili State", in CHIr, Vol. V. The Saljuq and Mongol Periods, ed. J. A. Boyle (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 422-82; Bernard Lewis, The Assassins: a Radical Sect in Islam (London, 1967), pp. 38-140, and Daftary, The Ismd'Tlis, pp. 324- 434, 669-99.

6 See P. Casanova, "Monnaie des Assassins de Perse", Revue Numis- matique, 3 serie, XI (1893), pp. 343-52, and George C. Miles, "Coins of the Assassins of Alamut", Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, III (1972) pp. 155-62.

7See Ivanow, Ismaili Literature, pp. 134-6, and Poonawala, Biobibliography, pp. 260-3.

'The Fusil-i arbaca has not survived, but it was fragmentarily quoted by Hasan-i Sabbih's contemporary al-Shahrastani (d. 548/ 1153), the renowned theologian and heresiographer who may have been a crypto-Ismicill towards the end of his life; see Abu 'l-Fath Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani, Kitdb al-milal wa'l-nihal ed. 'A. M. al-Wakil (Cairo, 1968), vol. I, pp. 195-8; partial English translation, Muslim Sects and Divisions, tr. A. K. Kazi and J. G. Flynn (London, 1984), pp. 167-70; also translated into English in Hodgson, Order, pp. 325-8. This treatise was also seen and paraphrased by Juwayni and other chief Persian historians of the Tlkhinid period writing on the IsmaI'ilis. ' Nasir al-Din Muhammad b. Muhammad al-Tfisi, Rawdat al-taslTm, yd tasawwurdt, ed. and tr. W. Ivanow (Leiden, 1950); a better edition of this work is contained in Sayyed Jalal Hosseini Badakh- chani, The Paradise of Submission (D. Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1989, unpubl.), pp. 271-421.

"o Ta'rfkh-i jahan-gushdy, ed. Muhammad Qazvini (Leiden-London, 1912-37), vol. III, pp. 186-278; English translation, The History of

the World-Conqueror, tr. John A. Boyle (Manchester, 1958), vol. II, pp. 666-725.

" Ibid., vol. III, pp. 142-68; tr. Boyle, vol. II, pp. 641-65. 2 Jam{ al-tawdrfkh; qgismat-i Ismdna'lyi n va F#timiy Tn va Nizdriydn va dad'yan va raffqan, ed. M. T. Dinishpazhfih and M. Mudarissi Zanjdni (Tehran, 1338/1959).

' See his Ta'rfkh-i Uljdyt7, ed. M. Hambly (Tehran, 1348/1969), pp. 2, 5, 54-5, 196, 240.

'4 Zubdat al-tawdrfkh; bakhsh-i F.timiydn

va Nizdriydn, ed. M. T. Dinishpazhilh (2nd ed., Tehran, 1366/1987). Kdshini's Isma'ili history does not seem to have been utilised by scholars before 1964, when its first edition, prepared by Dinishpazhfih, was published as the Supplement no. 9 to the Revue de la Faculte des Lettres, Universiti de Tabriz (1343/1964), pp. 1-215. Both editions of Kashani's Ismdfili history have been based on the same manuscript copy dated 989/1581, which is the oldest known copy and belongs to the Tehran University Library.

' Ta'rfkh-i guzTda, ed. 'Abd al-HIusayn Nav'ii (Tehran, 1339/1960), pp. 518-28.

'lMajma' al-tawarfkh al-sul.tanyya; qismat-i khulafi-i cAlawiyya-yi Maghrib va Misr va Nizariyan va rafiqdn, ed. M. Mudarrisi Zanjini (Tehran, 1364/1985), pp. 189-283, covering the events of the Persian Niziri state.

'"Juwayni, vol. III, pp. 187-9; tr. Boyle, vol. II, pp. 666-8, Rashid al-Din, pp. 97, 133-4; Kishini, pp. 133, 229; see also Poonawala, Biobibliography, p. 253.

'~ Rashid al-Din, p. 144; Kdshini, p. 182. " Rashid al-Din, pp. 144, 153; Kashini, pp. 182, 190. 20 Rashid al-Din, p. 138. 2' Ibid., pp. 153, 161; Kishini, p. 198. 22 See W. Ivanow, "An Ismaili Poem in Praise of Fidawis", Journal of

the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, New Series, 14 (1938), pp. 63-72; idem, Ismaili Literature, p. 134; Poonawala, Biobibli- ography, pp. 259-60, and F. Daftary, "Birjandi, RaTis Hasan", The Persian Encyclopaedia of Islam (forthcoming).

" Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Sayr va sulik, in his Majmi'a-yi rasd'il, ed. M. T. Mudarrisi Radavi (Tehran, 1335/1956), p. 41.

24 See Rashid al-Din, pp. 169-70, 195; Kishini, p. 208. 2" Rashid al-Din, pp. 163-7, 170; KSshini, pp. 201-3, 205, 208. See

also Ivanow, Ismaili Literature, pp. 132-3. 26 See, for instance, Kishini, pp 211-13, 221. 27Juwayni, vol. III, pp. 226-30, 234, 240, 244; tr. Boyle, vol. II,

pp. 688-91, 694, 698, 700. 2' The major exception, representing the only Ismi'ili history written

by a Persian Niziri author during the post-Alamfit period, is Muhammad b. Zayn al-'Abidin

FidS'i Khurdisini's Kitdb-i hiddyat al-mu'minrn al-talibin, ed. A. A. Semenov (Moscow, 1959). FidF'T Khurisani (d. 1342/1923), the most learned Persian Nizari of modern times, wrote his history, which is filled with anachronisms and errors, around the year 1320/1903. By that time, the Persian Nizaris were, indeed, rather ill-informed about the history of their community and the Ism.'ili movement in general.



persian historiography of the early nizārī ismāʿīlīs

Documents

jstor terms

mediaeval times

jstor archive

institute of ismaili

ismaili author

terms conditions of

mediaeval history

ismaili doctrines