ISMAʿILISM i. ISMAʿILI STUDIES

In its modern and scientific form, dating to the 1930s, Ismaʿili studies represents one of the newest fields of Islamic studies. Before this time, the Ismaʿilis were almost exclusively studied and evaluated on the basis of evidence collected, or often fabricated, by their enemies. As a result, they were persistently misrepresented with a variety of myths and legends circulating about their teachings and practices. The perceptions of outsiders of the Ismaʿilis in the pre-modern period, in both Muslim and Christian milieus, contrast with modern developments in Ismaʿili studies to make the history of this field particularly fascinating.

As the most revolutionary wing of Shiʿism with a religio-political agenda that aimed to uproot the ʿAbbasids and restore the caliphate to a line of ʿAlid imams, the Ismaʿilis from early on aroused the hostility of the Sunnite establishment. With the foundation of the Fatimid state in 297/909, the potential challenge of the Ismaʿilis to Sunnite “orthodoxy” became actualized, and thereupon the ʿAbbasids and the Sunnite ulama launched what amounted to an official anti-Ismaʿili propaganda campaign. The overall purpose of this prolonged campaign was to discredit the entire Ismaʿili movement from its roots, so that they could be readily condemned by other Muslims as molḥeds, heretics or deviators from the true religious path. In particular, several generations of Sunnite polemicists, starting with Abu ʿAbd-Allāh Mo-ḥammad b. ʿAli b. Rezām Ṭāʾi Kufi, known as Ebn Rezām, who lived in Baghdad during the first half of the 4th/10th century, began to fabricate evidence that would provide justification for the condemnation of the Ismaʿilis on specific doctrinal grounds. Ebn Rezām’s book on the refutation of the Ismaʿilis has not survived, but it was used extensively by another polemicist and early ʿAlid genealogist Šarif Abu’l-Ḥosayn Moḥammad b. ʿAli, better known as Aḵu Moḥsen, who wrote his own anti-Ismaʿili work to refute the doctrines of the Ismaʿilis and the ʿAlid genealogy of their imams. Aḵu Moḥsen’s treatise, too, written around 372/982, has not survived directly. However, the Ebn Rezām-Aḵu Moḥsen accounts have been preserved fragmentarily in the writings of Nowayri (pp. 187-317), Ebn al-Dawādāri (pp. 6-21, 44-156), and Maqrizi (pp. 22-29, 151-202). These polemical writings were used as a major source of information by Sunnite heresiographers, such as Abu Manṣur ʿAbd-al-Qāher b. Ṭāher Baḡdādi (pp. 265-99), who produced another important category of source material against the Ismaʿilis. The earliest Twelver Shiʿite heresiographers Nowbaḵti and Qomi, who were better informed than their Sunnite counterparts about the internal divisions of Shiʿism, were less hostile toward the Ismaʿilis while upholding the legitimacy of the rival Ḥosaynid line of ʿAlid Imams recognized by the Twelver Shiʿites.

Polemicists also fabricated travesties in which they attributed a variety of shocking beliefs and practices to the Ismaʿilis. These travesties circulated widely in the guise of genuine Ismaʿili works and were used as source materials by later polemicists and heresiographers. Aḵu Moḥsen claims to have read one of these forgeries, the anonymous Ketāb al-siāsa, quoted also by Baḡdādi (pp. 277-79), which expounded the procedures allegedly followed by Ismaʿili dāʿis (missionaries; q.v.) to attract converts and instruct them through seven stages of initiation (balāḡ), leading ultimately to libertinism and atheism (see Stern, pp. 56-83). The same book, or another travesty entitled Ketāb al-balāḡ, was seen by Ebn al-Nadim (pp. 238, 240). In fact, the Ismaʿili tradition itself only knows these travesties from the polemics of its enemies. Nonetheless, the anti-Ismaʿili polemical and heresiographical traditions, in turn, influenced the historians, theologians and jurists who wished to comment on the Ismaʿilis. By their misrepresentation of the Ismaʿilis, the anti-Ismaʿili authors in fact produced a “black legend” in the course of the 4th/10th century. Thus, Ismaʿilism was portrayed as the arch-heresy of Islam, carefully designed by some non-ʿAlid impostors, or possibly even a Jewish magician disguised as a Muslim, with the aim of destroying Islam from within (see, for instance, Ivanow, 1946). By the 5th/11th century, this “black legend,” with its elaborate details and stages of initiation, had been accepted as an accurate and reliable description of Ismaʿili motives, beliefs and practices, leading to further accusations against the Is-māʿiliya, or Bāṭeniya, another designation coined in reference to the Ismaʿilis by their enemies.

The revolt of the Persian Ismaʿilis led by Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ (q.v.) against the Saljuq Turks provoked another round of Sunnite reaction against the Ismaʿilis in general and the Nezāri Ismaʿilis in particular. The new literary campaign was initiated by the all-powerful Saljuq vizier Neẓām-al-Molk, who devoted a long chapter in his Siāsat-nāma (pp. 282-311; trans., pp. 208-31) to the condemnation of the Ismaʿilis. At the same time, Ḡazāli was com-missioned by the ʿAbbasid caliph al-Mostaẓher to write a major polemical tract against the Bāṭenis and their doctrine of taʿlim (authoritative instruction from the Imam; see Ḡazāli, Fażāʾeḥ al-Bāṭeniya). It was under such circumstances that the Nezāri Ismaʿilis of Syria were referred to by the term of abuse ḥašišiya (Abu Šāma, I, pp. 240, 258; Ebn Moyassar, p. 102). The Persian Nezāris, too, were designated as ḥašiši in some contemporary Zaydi sources written in northern Persia (Madelung, pp. 146, 239). However, it should be pointed out that all Muslim sources which refer to the Nezāris as ḥašišis use this term in its pejorative sense of “low-class rabble,” without accusing the Nezāris of actually using the narcotic hashish.

It was in the time of Rāšed-al-Din Senān, who led the Syrian Nezāris for three decades until his death in 589/1193, that occidental chroniclers of the Crusades and a number of European travelers began to write about the Nezāri Ismaʿilis, better known in medieval Europe as “the Assassins.” The very term “Assassin” was evidently based on local variants of the Arabic word ḥašiši (plural, ḥašišiya) picked up in the Levant by the Crusaders and their European observers. The Crusader circles, who remained completely ignorant of Islam and the Ismaʿilis, now began to produce reports about the alleged secret practices of the Nezāri Ismaʿilis, with whom they had come into contact in Syria. Eventually, medieval Europeans themselves began to fabricate and put into circulation both in the Latin Orient and in Europe a number of tales, rooted in their “imaginative ignorance,” about the secret practices of the Assassins and their leader, the so-called “Old Man of the Mountain—”another term coined by the Crusader circles and originally applied to Senān (see, e.g., Arnold of Lübeck, pp. 178-79, 240; Daftary, 1994, p. 116). These imaginative tales revolved around the recruitment and training of the Nezāri fedāʾis (q.v.). The so-called Assassin legends consisted of a number of interconnected tales which developed in stages and finally culminated in a synthesis popularized by Marco Polo (I, pp. 139-46). Different Assassin legends were “imagined” independently and at times concurrently by different authors, such as Arnold of Lübeck (d. 1212) and James of Vitry (d. 1240); and by the 8th/14th century, these legends had acquired wide currency and were accepted as reliable descriptions of secret Nezāri practices (Daftary, 1994, pp. 88-127). Henceforth, the Nezāris were portrayed in medieval European sources as a sinister order of hashish-crazed “assassins” bent on senseless murder and mischief.

The orientalists of the 19th century, led by A. I. Silvestre de Sacy (1758-1838), correctly identified the Ismaʿilis as a Shiʿite Muslim community, but they were still obliged to study them exclusively on the basis of the hostile Sunnite sources and the fanciful tales of the Crusader circles. Consequently, the orientalists, too, lent their seal of approval to the medieval myths about the Ismaʿilis, including the anti-Ismaʿili “black legend” of the Sunnite polemicists and the Assassin legends of the Crusaders. It was under such circumstances that von Hammer-Purgstall (q.v.; 1774-1856) wrote the first Western book on the Persian Nezāris of the Alamut period. This book, permeated with misconceptions and misrepresentations, received much acclaim in Europe and continued to be treated as the standard history of the Nezāris until the 1930s. With rare exceptions, notably the studies of Charles F. Defrémery (1822-83) on the Nezāris of Syria and Persia and those of Michael J. de Goeje (1836-1909) on the Carmatians (q.v.), the Ismaʿilis continued to be misrepresented to varying degrees by later orientalists. Even a distinguished scholar like Edward Browne (q.v.) could not resist reiterating the orientalistic tales of his predecessors about the Ismaʿilis (I, 391-415; II, 190-211, 453-60). Meanwhile, Westerners retained the habit of referring to the Nezāri Ismaʿilis of the Alamut period as the Assassins, a misnomer rooted in a medieval pejorative appellation.

The breakthrough in Ismaʿili studies occurred with the recovery and study of genuine Ismaʿili texts on a relatively large scale—manuscript sources which had been preserved secretly in scattered private collections. A few Ismaʿili manuscripts of Syrian provenance had already surfaced in Paris during the nineteenth century, and some fragments of these Arabic texts were published by S. Guyard among others. At the same time, Paul Casanova (1861-1926), who produced important studies on the Fatimids, was the first European orientalist to recognize the Ismaʿili connection of the Rasāʾel Eḵwān al-Ṣafāʾ. More Ismaʿili manuscripts preserved in the Yemen and Central Asia were recovered in the opening decades of the twentieth century (see Griffini, pp. 80-88; Ivanow, 1917, pp. 359-86). However, by 1922, when the first Western bibliography of Ismaʿili works was compiled by Louis Massignon, who erroneously used the terms Carmatian and Ismaʿili interchangeably, scholars clearly still possessed only a very limited knowledge of Ismaʿili literature.

Modern scholarship in Ismaʿili studies was initiated in the 1930s in India, where significant collections of Ismaʿili manuscripts are preserved within the Ṭayyebi Ismaʿili Bohra community. The breakthrough resulted mainly from the pioneering efforts of Wladimir Ivanow (1886-1970; q.v.) and a few Ismaʿili Bohra scholars, notably Asaf A. A. Fyzee (1899-1981), Ḥosayn F. Ham-dāni (1901-62) and Zāhed ʿAli (1888-1958), all of whom possessed family collections of important manuscripts. It was indeed Fyzee who through his studies of Qāżi Noʿmān’s legal treatises made modern scholars aware of the existence of an independent Ismaʿili school of jurisprudence (see Daftary, 1984, pp. 49-63). Ivanow found access not only to the Arabic manuscripts preserved by Ṭayyebi Ismaʿili Bohras but also to the Persian Ismaʿili literature of the Nezāris of Persia, Afghanistan and Central Asia. As a result, he compiled the first detailed catalogue of Ismaʿili works, attesting to the hitherto unknown richness and diversity of Ismaʿili literature and intellectual traditions. This catalogue (Ivanow, 1933) provided a scientific framework for modern Ismaʿili studies. Ismaʿili scholarship received another major impetus through the establishment in 1946, in Bombay, of the Ismaili Society, or Anjoman-e Esmāʿili (q.v.).

By 1963, when Ivanow published a revised edition of his catalogue, many more Ismaʿili sources had been discovered and progress in Ismaʿili studies had been astonishing. Numerous Ismaʿili texts had now begun to be critically edited and studied, laying a solid foundation for further progress in the field. In this connection, other than the Persian Nezāri texts edited and translated by Ivanow and published by the Ismaili Society, mention should be made of the editions and translations of the texts of the Fatimid and later times by Henry Corbin (q.v.), published in his Bibliothèque Iranienne series, and the Arabic Ismaʿili texts edited by the Egyptian scholar Moḥammad Kāmel Ḥosayn (1901-61) in his Selselat Maḵṭuṭāt al-Fāṭemiyin series. At the same time, ʿĀref Tāmer (1921-98) published numerous Ismaʿili texts of Syrian provenance, though often in flawed editions. Meanwhile, a group of Egyptian scholars, notably Ḥasan Ebrāhim Ḥasan (1892-1968), Jamāl-al-Din al-Šayyāl (1911-67) and ʿAbd-al-Monʿem Mājed (1920-99) made important contributions to Fatimid studies, while in the West, Bernard Lewis, Samuel M. Stern (1920-69), Wilferd Madelung and Abbas Hamdani produced important studies on the early history of the Ismaʿilis and their relations with the Carmatians; and Marshall Hodgson (1922-68) produced the first scholarly study of the Nezāris of the Alamut period.

The rapid progress in the recovery and study of Ismaʿili literature in the course of the 20th century is reflected well in I. K. Poonawala’s Biobibliography (1977), which identifies some 1300 titles written by more than 200 authors. Progress in Ismaʿili studies promises to continue at an even greater pace as many Ismaʿilis themselves are now becoming interested in the study of their own history and literary heritage, and as The Institute of Ismaili Studies (q.v.), with its unique collection of manuscripts (see Gacek; Cortese), continues to serve as a central forum for furthering progress in this field of Islamic studies.

ISMAʿILISM ii. ISMAʿILI HISTORIOGRAPHY

Ismaʿili historiography has been closely related to the very nature of the Ismaʿili mission, or daʿwa, and the changing fortunes of the Ismaʿilis during the various phases of their history. The Ismaʿilis were usually persecuted by their numerous enemies, necessitating the observance of taqiya by them. The Ismaʿili dāʿis, who were at the same time the scholars and authors of their community, often operated in hostile territories and were obliged to observe utter secrecy in their activities. These dāʿi-authors were, moreover, normally trained as theologians and as such, they were not interested in compiling annalistic or other types of historical accounts. The general lack of Ismaʿili interest in historiography is well attested by the fact that only a few works of historical nature have been found in the rich corpus of Ismaʿili literature recovered in modern times, which comprises mainly of theological works, with a substantial number of treatises related to the so-called esoteric, or ḥaqāʾeq, subjects, as well as numerous titles utilizing the methodology of esoteric interpretation (taʾwil), the hallmark of Ismaʿili thought (see Majduʿ; Ivanow, pp. 17-173; Poonawala, pp. 31-297). It should be added, however, that the religious works of the Ismaʿilis, written in Arabic, Persian and Indic languages, do occasionally shed light on aspects of Ismaʿili history, while at the same time they serve themselves as sources for understanding the nature and development of the intellectual and literary traditions of the Ismaʿilis.

Among the few historical works produced by Ismaʿili authors mention may be made of Qāżi Noʿmān’s Eftetāḥ al-daʿwa (Beirut, 1970; Tunis, 1975), completed in 346/957, which is the oldest known Ismaʿili history covering the background to the establishment of the Fatimid state in North Africa. In later medieval times, only one general history of Ismaʿilism, covering from the earliest period until the mid-6th/12th century, was written by an Ismaʿili author, namely, the seven-volume ʿOyun al-aḵbār (Beirut, 1973-84) of Edris ʿEmād-al-Din (d. 872/1468), the 19th dāʿi-e moṭlaq of the Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi Ismaʿilis in Yemen. This dāʿi produced two more historical works, the Nozhat al-afkār and the Rawżat al-aḵbār (Sanaa, 1995), which continue the history of the Ṭayyebi daʿwa until 870/1465. There are also certain brief, but highly significant, accounts of particular events in Ismaʿili history, notably the Estetār al-emām (ed. W. Ivanow, 1936a), written by the dāʿi Nisāburi, relating the settlement of the early Ismaʿili imam ʿAbd-Allāh al-Akbar in Salamiya, and the subsequent prolonged journey of ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi from Syria to North Africa where he was installed to the Fatimid caliphate in 297/909.

In spite of the general absence of an Ismaʿili historiographical tradition, there were two periods during which the Ismaʿilis concerned themselves with historical writings and produced or encouraged works which in a sense served as official chronicles. During the Fatimid and Alamut periods of their history, the Ismaʿilis possessed states of their own and ruling dynasties whose achievements needed to be recorded by reliable chroniclers. In Fatimid times (297-567/909-1171), especially after the transference of the seat of the Fatimid state to Cairo in 362/973, numerous histories of the Fatimid caliphate and dynasty were written by contemporary historians, both Ismaʿili and non-Ismaʿili, such as Ebn Zulāq (d. 386/996), Mosabbeḥi (d. 420/1029) and Qażāʾi (d. 454/1062). With the exception of a few fragments, however, none of these chronicles survived the demise of the Fatimid dynasty. The Sunnite Ayyubids who succeeded the Ismaʿili Shiʿite Fatimids, systematically destroyed the renowned Fatimid libraries, including the collections of the Dār al-ʿElm in Cairo, also persecuting the Ismaʿilis of Egypt (see Daftary, 1990, pp. 144-52; Walker, pp. 152-69).

In addition to historical writings, the Ismaʿilis of the Fatimid period who enjoyed the protection of their own state, also produced certain biographical works of the monāẓara and sira genres with great historical value. Among the extant examples of such works, special mention may be made of the Ketāb al-monāẓarāt (ed. and tr. W. Madelung and P. E. Walker, London, 2000) of the dāʿi Ebn Hayṯam, containing unique details on the first year of Fatimid rule in Efriqiya; the Sira of Jaʿfar b. ʿAli (ed. W. Ivanow, 1936b), chamberlain (ḥājeb) to the first Fatimid caliph-imam al-Mahdi; and the Sira (Cairo, 1954) of Ostaḏ Jawḏar (d. 363/973), who served the first four Fatimid caliph-imams. There is also the important autobiography of al-Moʾayyad fi’l-Din Širāzi (d. 470/1078), who held the office of the chief dāʿi in Cairo for almost twenty years (Walker, pp. 131-51).

The Nezāri Ismaʿilis, too, maintained a historiographical tradition during the Alamut period of their history (483-654/1090-1256), when they had a territorial state in Persia centered at the mountainous fortress of Alamut (q.v.), with a subsidiary branch in Syria. During this turbulent period, they compiled chronicles in Persian recording the events of their state according to the reigns of the successive lords of Alamut (Daftary, 1990, pp. 324-33; idem, 1992, pp. 91-97). This historiographical tradition commenced with the Sargoḏašt-e Sayyednā, a work describing the life and the events of the reign of Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ (q.v., d. 518/1124) as the first lord of Alamut. The first part of this work, which has not survived directly, may have been autobiographical. The reign of Kiā Bozorg-Omid (518-532/1124-1138), Ḥasan’s successor as the leader of the Nezāri state and daʿwa, was covered in another chronicle entitled Ketāb-e Bozorg-Omid. The events of the Persian Nezāri state during the subsequent times until the reign of the eighth and final lord of Alamut, Rokn-al-Din Ḵoršāh and the Mongol destruction of that state in 654/1256, were narrated by other Nezāri chroniclers such as Dehḵodā ʿAbd-al-Malek b. ʿAli Fašandi and Raʾis Ḥasan Ṣalāḥ-al-Din Monši Birjandi. All these chronicles held at the libraries of Alamut and other Nezari castles in Daylamān and Qohestān perished in the Mongol invasions or soon afterwards, during the period of Ilkhanid rule over Persia. However, these chronicles as well as other Nezāri writings and documents were seen and used extensively by three Persian historians of the Ilkhanid period, namely, Joveyni (d. 681/1283), Rašid-al-Din Fażl-Allāh (d. 718/1318) and Abu’l-Qāsem Kāšāni (d. ca. 736/1335), in their own histories of the Ismaʿilis. Indeed, these histories remain our most important primary sources on the Nezāri Ismaʿili state in Persia; and they provided the main sources of reference for later Persian historians, like Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawfi (d. after 740/1339) and Ḥāfeẓ-e Abru (d. 833/1430), writing on the subject. Unlike their Persian co-religionists, the Syrian Nezāris and the Nezāri Ḵojas of the Indian subcontinent did not elaborate historiographical traditions.

In the turbulent conditions of the post-Alamut period, when the Persian Nezāris often had to resort to practicing taqiya, and the Nezāri imams remained in hiding for several generations, their literary activities almost ceased to exist and the Nezāris of different regions, who now developed independently of each other, remained largely ignorant of their historical heritage. The situation ameliorated somewhat during the Anjedān (q.v.) revival in Nezāri daʿwa and literary activities, which coincided almost exactly with the Safavid period in Persian history. However, the Nezāri works of this period, such as those produced by Abu Esḥāq Qohestāni (d. after 904/1498) and Ḵayrḵvāh-e Harāti (d. after 960/1553), although doctrinal in nature, do contain some historical information. In Badaḵšān and other regions of Central Asia, the Nezāris of later medieval times elaborated a distinctive literary and doctrinal tradition, based especially on the teachings of Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow as well as certain Sufi traditions. However, the Central Asian Nezāris, too, did not develop any interest in historiography. Indeed, in the entire extant literature of the Nezāris of Persia and Central Asia, written in the Persian language and preserved mainly in private libraries of Badaḵšān now divided between Tajikistan and Afghanistan, there are no historical works worth mentioning, with the major exception of the Hedāyat al-moʾmenin of Fedāʾi Ḵorāsāni (q.v; d. 1342/1923).

On the other hand, the Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi Ismaʿilis, especially those belonging to the majority Dāʾudi branch, have produced a number of works in Arabic on the history of their daʿwa and the dynasties of their dāʿis in Yaman and India. In order to make them more accessible to the Dāʾudi Bohra community, some of these histories produced in modern times have been written in Gujarati and transcribed in Arabic (Daftary, 1990, pp. 256-61). Amongst more reliable histories of this kind, mention may be made of the Montazaʿ al-aḵbār (Beirut, 1999) of Qoṭb-al-Din Solaymānji Borhānpuri (d. 1241/1826), and the Mawsem-e bahār (Bombay, 1301-1311/1884-93) of Moḥammad-ʿAli Rāmpuri (d. 1315/1897). In more recent times, a number of learned Dāʾudi Bohras such as Zāhed-ʿAli (1888-1958) and members of the scholarly Hamdāni family have produced historical works in Arabic, Urdu and English on the basis of their ancestral collections of Ismaʿili manuscripts. Since the 1960s, a growing number of Ismaʿilis, belonging mainly to the Nezāri community, have written doctoral dissertations on aspects of Ismaʿili history.

ISMAʿILISM iii. ISMAʿILI HISTORY

ORIGINS AND EARLY HISTORY

On the death of Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq in 148/765 his followers from among the Imami Shiʿites split into six groups of which two may be identified as proto-Ismaʿilis or earliest Ismaʿilis. Imam al-Ṣādeq had originally designated his second son Esmāʿil (the eponym of the Es-māʿiliya) as his successor to the imamate, but as related in the majority of the sources, Esmāʿil had predeceased his father. The two proto-Ismaʿili groups, which were based in Kufa and supported the claims of Esmāʿil b. Jaʿfar (q.v.) and his son Moḥammad, had already appeared in the lifetime of Imam al-Ṣādeq but they separated from other Imamis only in 148/765. One of these groups denied the death of Esmāʿil and awaited his return as the Mahdi. The members of this group, designated as al-Esmāʿiliya al-ḵāleṣa, or the ‘pure Esmāʿiliya’ by the earliest Imami heresiographers, Nawbaḵòti and Qomi, who are our main sources for the initial phase of Ismaʿilism, held that Imam al-Ṣādeq had announced Esmāʿil’s death as a ruse to protect him against ʿAbbasid persecution as he had been politically active against them. The second group, designated as the Mobārakiya, affirming Esmāʿil’s death, now recognized his eldest son Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as their imam (Feraq al-šiʿa, pp. 57-58; Qomi, pp. 80-81, 83; Ašʿari, Maqālāt, pp. 26-27; Daftary, 1991, pp. 220 ff.). It seems likely that the Mobārakiya, derived from Esmāʿil’s epithet al-Mobārak, the Blessed One (Sejestāni, Etbāt, p. 190; Edris, Zahr, p. 199; Ḥ. F. al-Hamdāni, 1958, text p. 10; Ivanow, 1946, pp. 103-12), were originally supporters of Esmāʿil before acknowledging Moḥammad as their Imam. At any rate, Mobārakiya was thus one of the original names of the nascent Esmāʿiliya, a term coined by later heresiographers.

Nawbaḵti (pp. 58-59) and Qomi (p. 81), who are generally hostile towards the Ismaʿilis, identify al-Esmāʿiliya al-Ḵāleṣa with the early Ḵaṭṭābiya, the followers of Abu’l-Ḵaṭṭāb (q.v.), the most famous ḡāli (a term used pejoratively by heresiographers for those who attribute divine qualities to Imams; see ḠOLĀT) in the entourage of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq, who was eventually repudiated by the Imam. They further hold that on the death of Abu’l-Ḵaṭṭāb in 138/755 a group of his ḡolāt followers joined the supporters of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil (Feraq al-šiʿa, pp. 60-61; Qomi, p. 83). Some later sources, too, refer to close relations between the earliest Ismaʿilis and the Ḵaṭṭābis (Lewis, 1940, pp. 33-35). On the other hand, Abu’l-Ḵaṭṭāb is condemned as a heretic by the Ismaʿilis of the Fatimid times (see, for example, Qāżi Noʿmān, Daʿāʾem, I, pp. 49-50; tr. Fyzee, I, pp. 65-66; idem, Ketāb al-majāles, pp. 84-85). Be that as it may, relations between al-Esmāʿiliya al-ḵāleṣa and the Mobārakiya, on the one hand, and between these groups and the Ḵaṭṭābis, on the other, remain rather obscure due to lack of reliable sources. It is certain, however, that all these groups were politically active against the ʿAbbasids and they originated within the radical milieus of Imami Shiʿism in Kufa.

Little is known about the life and career of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil, the seventh imam of the Ismaʿilis. The relevant biographical information contained in early Ismaʿili sources has been preserved by the dāʿi (q.v.; Ismāʿili missionary) Edris (ʿOyun, IV, pp. 351-56; idem, Zahr, pp. 204-8). Soon after al-Ṣādeq’s death, and after the recognition of the imamate of his uncle Musā al-Kāẓem by the majority of the Imamis, Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil left Medina, seat of the ʿAlids, and went into hiding. His decision marked the initiation of the dawr al-satr, or period of concealment, in early Ismaʿilism that lasted until the foundation of the Fatimid state when the Ismaʿili Imams emerged from their concealment. Henceforth, Moḥammad acquired the epithet of al-Maktum, the Hidden One, in addition to al-Maymun, the Fortunate One. Nonetheless, Moḥammad maintained his contacts with the Kufan-based Mobārakiya from different localities in southern Iraq and Persia. He seems to have spent the latter part of his life in Ḵuzestān, where he had some following. He died not long after 179/795 during the caliphate of the ʿAbbasid Hārun al-Rašid. On the death of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil, the Mobārakiya split into two groups (Feraq al-šiʿa, p. 61; Qomi, p. 83). A majority refused to accept his death; they recognized him as their seventh and last imam, and awaited his return as the Mahdi or qāʾem. A second, small and obscure group, acknowledging Moḥammad’s death, traced the imamate in his progeny. Almost nothing is known with certainty regarding the subsequent history of these earliest Ismaʿili groups until shortly after the middle of the 3rd/9th century, when a unified Ismaʿili movement appeared on the historical stage.

It is certain that for almost a century after Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil, a group of leaders who were well placed within Ismaʿilism worked secretly for the creation of a unified, revolutionary Shiʿite movement against the ʿAbbasids. These leaders did not openly claim the Ismaʿili imamate for three generations. They had, in fact, hidden their true identity in order to escape ʿAbbasid persecution. ʿAbd-Allāh al-Akbar, the first of these hidden leaders, had organized his campaign around the central doctrine of the majority of the earliest Ismaʿilis, namely, the Mahdism of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil. Organizing a revolutionary movement in the name of a concealed imam who could not be chased by ʿAbbasid agents represented an attractive strategy. At any rate, the existence of such a group of early Ismaʿili leaders is confirmed by both the official version of the Ismaʿilis of the Fatimid period regarding the pre-Fatimid phase of their history (Edris, ʿOyun, IV, pp. 357-67, 390-404) as well as the hostile account of the Sunni polemicists Ebn Rezām and Aḵu Moḥsen preserved in later sources (Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 44-156; Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 151-201; idem, al-Ḵeṭaṭ, I, pp. 391-97; Nowayri, XXV, pp. 187-317). Indeed, with minor variations, the names of these leaders, viz., ʿAbd-Allāh, Aḥmad, Ḥosayn, or Moḥammad and ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi, who were members of the same family and succeeded one another on a hereditary basis, are almost identical in the accounts of the later Fatimid Ismaʿilis (Ḥ. F. al-Hamdāni, 1958, text pp. 10-12; Nisāburi, p. 95; see also Hamdani and de Blois, pp. 173-207) and in the lists traceable to Aḵu Moḥsen and his source Ebn Rezām (Ebn al-Nadim, ed. Tajaddod, p. 238; tr. Dodge, I, pp. 462-64; Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 17-20; Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 22-26; Nowayri, XXV, p. 189; Ḥammādi Yamāni, Kašf, pp. 16 ff.). However, in the Ismaʿili sources these leaders are presented as ʿAlids descending from Imam al-Ṣādeq while in anti-Ismaʿili accounts their ancestry is traced to a certain Maymun al-Qaddāḥ. Modern scholarship has shown that the Qaddāḥid ancestry of the early Ismaʿili leaders was constructed by hostile polemicists, soon after the establishment of the Fatimid caliphate, in order to refute the ʿAlid genealogy of the Fatimid caliph-imams. Maymun al-Qaddāḥ and his son ʿAbd-Allāh (see ʿABDALLĀH b. MAYMŪN) were, in fact, associated with Imams al-Bāqer and al-Ṣādeq and had nothing to do with the leaders or imams of early Ismaʿilism (see Ivanow, 1946, pp. 61-103; Daftary, 1990, pp. 105-16).

ʿAbd-Allāh al-Akbar, the first of the early Ismaʿili leaders after Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil, settled in ʿAskar Mokram, in Ḵuzestān, where he lived as a wealthy merchant. From there he began to organize a reinvigorated Ismaʿili daʿwa sending dāʿis to different districts around Ḵuzestān. At an unknown date, still in the first half of the 3rd/9th century, ʿAbd-Allāh found refuge in Syria, where he eventually re-established contact with some of his dāʿis, and settled in Salamiya, continuing to pose as a Hāšemid merchant. Henceforth, Salamiya, situated some 35 km southeast of Ḥamā, served as the secret headquarters of the Ismaʿili daʿwa. The efforts of ʿAbd-Allāh, and his successors, began to bear fruit in the 260s/870s, when numerous dāʿis appeared in Iraq and adjacent regions. It was around 261/874 that Ḥamdān Qarmaṭ (q.v.) was converted to Ismaʿilism by the dāʿi Ḥosayn Ahvāzi (Ebn al-Nadim, ed. Tajaddod, p. 238; Masʿudi, Tanbih, p. 395). Ḥamdān, in turn, organized the daʿwa in the Sawād of Kufa, his native locality, and in other districts of southern Iraq. Ḥamdān’s chief assistant was his brother-in-law ʿAbdān (q.v.). A learned theologian, ʿAbdān enjoyed a certain degree of independence and was responsible for training and appointing numerous dāʿis, including Abu Saʿid Jannābi (q.v.), who later founded the Qarmaṭi state of Baḥrayn.

Centered on the expectation of the imminent return of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as the Mahdi who would establish justice in the world, the revolutionary and messianic Ismaʿili movement appealed to underprivileged groups of different social backgrounds. It achieved particular success among the Imami Shiʿites who were disillusioned with the quietist policies of their imams and were left without a manifest imam after the death of the eleventh Imam, Abu Moḥammad Ḥasan al-ʿAskari (q.v.; d. 260/874). It was under such circumstances that Ḥamdān won many supporters in southern Iraq and embarked on his anti-ʿAbbasid activities (Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 44 ff.; Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 151 ff.; Nowayri, XXV, pp. 189 ff.; Ṭabari, III, pp. 2124, 2126-27; Ṭabari, tr. XXXVII, pp. 169, 171-73). The Ismaʿilis of southern Iraq became generally known as the Qarāmeṭa or Carmatians (q.v.), named after their first chief local leader. This term was soon applied to other Ismaʿili communities not organized by Ḥamdān and ʿAbdān. At the time, there was a single Ismaʿili movement directed from Salamiya in the name of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as the Mahdi (Stern, 1961, pp. 99-108; Madelung, 1961, pp. 43-65). In fact, in order to prepare the ground for the emergence of the Mahdi, in 277/890 Ḥamdān established a dār al-hejra, or abode of migration, near Kufa, where his followers gathered weapons and other provisions. This abode was to serve as the nucleus of a new society for the Ismaʿilis. Similar dār al-hejras were later established for the Ismaʿili communities of Yemen, Bahrain and North Africa. The Ismaʿilis (Qarmaṭis) now referred to their movement simply as al-daʿwa (the mission) or al-daʿwa al-hadia (the rightly guiding mission), in addition to using expressions such as daʿwat al-ḥaqq (summons to the truth) or ahl al-ḥaqq (people of the truth).

In the meantime, the Ismaʿili daʿwa had appeared in many other regions in the 260s/870s. ʿAbdān’s brother Maʾmun was active as a dāʿi in Fars, where the Ismaʿili converts became known as the Maʾmuniya (Daylami, p. 21). The daʿwa in Yaman was initiated by Ebn Ḥawšab (q.v.), later known as Manṣur al-Yaman. He arrived there in 268/881, accompanied by his collaborator ʿAli b. al-Fażl. By 293/905-6, when ʿAli occupied Ṣanʿāʾ, these dāʿis were in control of almost all of Yaman (Qāżi Noʿmān, Eftetāḥ, pp. 32-54; Janadi, Ketāb al-soluk, in Kay, 1892, text pp. 139-52, tr. pp. 191-212). Yaman also served as a base for the extension of the daʿwa to other regions. In 270/883, Ebn Ḥawšab sent his relative Haytam as a dāʿi to Sind, initiating the daʿwa on the Indian subcontinent (Qāżi Noʿmān, Eftetāḥ, pp. 45, 47; S. M. Stern, 1949, pp. 298 ff.; Hamdani, 1956). On Ebn Ḥawšab’s instructions, the dāʿi Abu ʿAbd-Allāh al-Šiʿi was active among the Kotāma Berbers of Lesser Kabylia in the Maghreb by 280/893. Ebn Ḥawšab sent other dāʿis to Yamāma, Egypt and Baḥrayn. After his initial activities in Fars, Abu Saʿid Jannābi was sent to Baḥrayn by Ḥam-dān and ʿAbdān in 273/886, or a few years later. He rapidly won converts there from among the bedouins and the Persian emigrants (Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 55-62, 91 ff.; Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 159 ff.; Nowayri, XXV, pp. 233 ff.; Ṭabari, III, pp. 2188 ff., 2196-97, 2205, 2232; Ṭabari, tr. XXXVIII, pp. 77 ff., 86-89, 98, 128-29; Masʿudi, Moruj, VIII, pp. 191 ff.; de Goeje, pp. 33-47, 69 ff.)

In the early 260s/870s, the daʿwa was taken to the region of the Jebāl in Persia by Ḵalaf al-Ḥallāj, who established himself in Ray. There, the Ismaʿilis became known as the Ḵalafiya. Under Ḵalaf’s successors as chief dāʿis of the Jebāl, the daʿwa spread to Qom, Kāšān, Isfahan, Hamadān and other towns of that region. Ḡiāṯ, the third dāʿi of Ray, extended the daʿwa to Khorasan and Transoxania on his own initiative. But the daʿwa was officially established in Khorasan during the last decade of the 3rd century (the first decade of the 9th century) by Abu ʿAbd-Allāh Ḵādem who set up his secret headquarters at Nišābur. A later chief dāʿi of Khorasan, Ḥosayn b. ʿAli Marwazi was an eminent amir in the service of the Sāmānids and he succeeded in extending the daʿwa to Herat, Ḡur and other localities under his control, (Neẓām-al-Molk, pp. 282-95, 297-305; tr. Darke, pp. 208-18, 220-26; Ebn al-Nadim, ed. Tajaddod, p. 239; Baḡdādi, Farq, ed. Badr, p. 267; Stern, 1960, pp. 56-90; repr. in idem, 1983, pp. 189-233).

By the early 280s/890s, a unified Ismaʿili movement had replaced the earlier Ismaʿili groups. But in 286/899, soon after ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi, the future Fatimid caliph, had succeeded to leadership in Salamiya, Ismaʿilism was wrought by a major schism. Ḥamdān now noticed significant changes in the doctrinal instructions he received from Salamiya, and dispatched ʿAbdān there to investigate the matter. Ḥamdān found out that instead of advocating Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as Mahdi, the new leader now claimed the imamate for himself and his predecessors, the central leaders of the Ismaʿili daʿwa in the dawr al-satr. Ḥamdān and ʿAbdān refused to accept this doctrinal change, allowing for continuity in the imamate. They renounced their allegiance to the central leadership of Ismaʿilism and suspended all daʿwa activities in Iraq. Soon after, Ḥamdān disappeared while ʿAbdān was murdered at the instigation of a subordinate dāʿi, Zekrawayh b. Mehrawayh, who initially remained loyal to Salamiya (Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 65-68; Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 167-68; Nowayri, XXV, pp. 227-32; Ebn Ḥawqal, p. 295; tr. Kramers and Wiet, II, p. 289; Madelung, 1961, pp. 59-65, 69 ff.; Daftary, 1993, pp. 123-39).

ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi’s reform is explained in a letter he later sent to the Ismaʿili community in Yaman (see Ḥ. F. al-Hamdani, 1958; also Hamdani and de Blois, 1983), in which an attempt is made to reconcile his reform with the actual course of events in pre-Fatimid Ismaʿili history. He explains that as a form of taqiya, the central leaders of the daʿwa had assumed different pseudonyms, such as al-Mobārak and al-Maymun, also assuming the rank of ḥojja, proof or full representative, of the absent Imam Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil. ʿAbd-Allāh, whose own pseudonym had been al-Saʿid, the Happy One, further explained that the earlier propagation of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as Mahdi was itself another dissimulating tactic and that this was in reality another collective pseudonym for every true imam in the progeny of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq. The statements of ʿAbd-Allāh are corroborated by the few surviving early Ismaʿili sources (see, for instance, Jaʿfar b. Manṣur al-Yaman, Ketāb al-kašf, pp. 97-99, 102 ff., 109-10, 135, 160; also Madelung, 1961, pp. 254-58).

The doctrinal reform of ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi split the Ismaʿili movement into two rival factions. One faction remained loyal to the central leadership and acknowledged continuity in the imamate, recognizing ʿAbd-Allāh and his ʿAlid ancestors as their imams, which was in due course incorporated into the Fatimid Ismaʿili doctrine of the imamate. These Ismaʿilis now allowed for three hidden imams (al-aʾemma al-masturin) between Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil and ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi. This loyalist faction came to include the bulk of the Ismaʿilis of Yaman and those communities in Egypt, North Africa and Sind, founded by dāʿis dispatched by Ebn Ḥawšab. On the other hand, a dissident faction, originally led by Ḥamdān, rejected ʿAbd-Allāh’s reform and maintained their original belief in the Mahdiship of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil. Henceforth, the term Qarmaṭi came to be applied more specifically to the dissidents, who did not acknowledge ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi, as well as his predecessors and successors in the Fatimid dynasty, as their imams. The dissident Qarmaṭi faction, which lacked central leadership, soon acquired its most important stronghold in the Qarmaṭi state of Baḥrayn, founded in the same eventful year 286/899 by Abu Saʿid Jannābi who sided with Ḥamdān and ʿAbdān (Ebn Ḥawqal, p. 295). There were also Qarmaṭi communities in Iraq, Yaman, Persia and Central Asia. The subsequent history of Qarmaṭism is not treated here (see F. Daftary, “Carmatians,” in EIr, IV, pp. 825-32; Madelung, “Ḳarmaṭī,” in EI ² IV, pp. 660-65; idem, 1959; idem, 1996).

Meanwhile, the dāʿi Zekrawayh b. Mehrawayh had gone into hiding following the events of the year 286/899, possibly fearing reprisals by ʿAbdān’s supporters in Iraq. From 288/901 he sent several of his sons as dāʿis to the Syrian desert where large numbers of bedouins were converted. Zekrawayh now aimed to establish a Fatimid state in Syria for ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi without his authorization. Soon Zekrawayh’s sons summoned their bedouin followers to proceed to Salamiya and declare their allegiance to the imam who was still guarding his identity. In the event, ʿAbd-Allāh, whose position had now been dangerously compromised, secretly left Salamiya in 289/902 to escape capture by the ʿAbbasid agents sent after him. He first went to Ramla, in Palestine, and then in 291/904, following the defeat of Zekrawayh’s movement in Syria by an ʿAbbasid army, he embarked on a historic journey which ended several years later in North Africa where he founded the Fatimid caliphate (see Yamāni, Sirat al-Ḥājeb, pp. 107-33; tr. in Ivanow, 1942, pp. 184-223; French tr. Canard, 1952, pp. 279-324). After their defeat in Syria in 291/904, Zekrawayh and his sons turned against ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi and joined the Qarmaṭi camp. Zekrawayh was finally defeated and killed in 294/907 by the ʿAbbasids while his Qarmaṭi movement lingered on for a while longer (Ṭabari, III, pp. 2218-46, 2255-75; tr. XXXVIII, 113-44, 157-79; ʿArib, pp. 9-18, 36, 137; Masʿudi, Tanbih, pp. 370-76, 391; Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 69-90; Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, I, pp. 168-79; Nowayri, XXV, pp. 246-76; Halm, 1979, pp. 30-53; idem, Empire of the Mahdi, pp. 66-88, 183-90).

The early Ismaʿilis elaborated the basic framework of a system of religious thought, which was further developed or modified in the Fatimid period. Central to this system was a fundamental distinction between the exoteric (ẓāher) and the esoteric (bāṭen) aspects of the sacred scriptures and religious commandments and prohibitions. Accordingly, they held that the Qurʾān and other revealed scriptures, and their laws (šariʿas), had their apparent or literal meaning, the ẓāher, which had to be distinguished from their inner meaning hidden in the bāṭen. They further held that the ẓāher, or the religious laws, enunciated by prophets underwent periodical changes while the bāṭen, containing the spiritual truths (ḥaqāʾeq), remained immutable and eternal. These truths, representing the message common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, were explained through taʾwil or esoteric exegesis, which often relied on the mystical significance of letters and numbers. In every age, the esoteric truths would be accessible only to the elite (Ḵawāṣṣ) of humankind as distinct from the ordinary people (ʿawāmm) who were only capable of perceiving the apparent meaning of the revelations. Consequently, in the era of Islam, the eternal truths of religion could be explained only to those who had been initiated into the Ismaʿili daʿwa and as such recognized the teaching authority of the Prophet Moḥammad and, after him, that of his waṣi, ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb, and the rightful imams who succeeded him; these authorities were the sole sources of taʾwil in the era of Islam. Initiation into Ismaʿilism, known as balāḡ, was gradual and took place after the novice had taken an oath of allegiance, ʿahd or mitāq. The initiates were also obliged to keep secret the bāṭen imparted to them by a hierarchy (ḥodud) of teachers (see Jaʿfar b. Manṣur al-Yaman, Ketāb al-ʿālem; Halm, “Ismaʿili Oath of Allegiance,” pp. 91-115). By believing in the bāṭen aspect of religion, the Ismaʿilis came to be regarded by the rest of the Muslim community as the most representative of the Shiʿites propounding esotericism in Islam and, hence, their common designation as the Bāṭeniya (q.v.). This designation was also used in a derogatory sense accusing the Ismaʿilis of generally ignoring the ẓāher, or the šariʿa.

The esoteric truths or ḥaqāʾeq formed a gnostic system of thought for the early Ismaʿilis, representing a distinct worldview. The two main components of this system, developed by the 280s/890s, were a cyclical history of revelations or prophetic eras and a gnostic cosmological doctrine. They applied their cyclical interpretation of time and the religious history of humankind to Judaeo-Christian revelations as well as a number of pre-Islamic religions such as Zoroastrianism with much appeal to non-Muslims. This conception of religious history, reflecting a variety of influences such as Hellenic, Judaeo-Christian, Gnostic as well as eschatological ideas of the earlier Shiʿites, was developed in terms of the eras of different prophets recognized in the Koran. This cyclical conception was also combined with the Ismaʿili doctrine of the imamate inherited from the earlier Imamis.

According to their cyclical view, the Ismaʿilis held that the religious history of humankind proceeded through seven prophetic eras (dawrs, q.v.) of various duration, each one inaugurated by a speaker or enunciator (nāṭeq) of a divinely revealed message which in its exoteric (ẓāher) aspect contained a religious law (šariʿa). Each nāṭeq was, in turn, succeeded by a spiritual legatee (waṣi), also called the silent one (ṣāmet) and later the foundation (asās), who revealed to the elite the esoteric truths (ḥaqāʾeq) contained in the bāṭen dimension of that era’s message. Each waṣi was succeeded by seven imams, who guarded the true meaning of the sacred scriptures and laws in their ẓāher and bāṭen aspects. The seventh imam, also called motemm, of every era would rise in rank to become the nāṭeq of the following era, abrogating the šariʿa of the previous era and enunciating a new one. This pattern would change only in the seventh, final era of history. As the seventh imam of the sixth era, the era of the Prophet Moḥammad and Islam, Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil was initially expected to return as the Mahdi (or qāʾem) as well as the nāṭeq of the seventh eschatological era when, instead of promulgating a new law, he would fully reveal the esoteric truths of all the preceding revelations. This original cyclical view of religious history was modified after ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi’s doctrinal reform. Recognizing continuity in the imamate, the seventh era now lost its earlier messianic appeal for the Fatimid Is-maʿilis, for whom the final eschatological era, whatever its nature, was postponed indefinitely into the future. On the other hand, the Qarmaṭis of Baḥrayn and elsewhere continued to consider Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil as their Mahdi who, on his reappearance as the seventh nāṭeq, was expected to initiate the final age of pure spirituality (see F. Daftary, “Dawr,” in EIr, VII, pp. 151-53; also Ebn Ḥawšab Manṣur al-Yaman, Ketāb al-rošd, pp. 185-213; tr. Ivanow, 1955, pp. 29-59; Jaʿfar b. Manṣur al-Yaman, Ketāb al-kašf, pp. 14 ff., 103-4, 109-10, 113-14, 132-33, 138, 143, 150, 169-70; Qāżi Noʿmān, Asās al-taʾwil; Sejestāni, Etbāt, pp. 181-93; Corbin, 1983, pp. 1-58; Madelung, 1961, pp. 51 ff., 82-90; Halm, 1978, pp. 18-37; Walker, 1978, 355-66).

The cosmological doctrine of the early Ismaʿilis may be reconstructed from the fragmentary evidence preserved in later Ismaʿili texts (see especially Stern, 1983, pp. 3-29; Halm, 1978, pp. 18-127, 206-27; idem, “The Cosmology of the Pre-Fatimid Ismāʿīliyya,” in Daftary, ed., 1996, pp. 75-83). This doctrine, representing a gnostic cosmological myth, was espoused by the entire Ismaʿili (Qarmaṭi) movement until it was superseded by a new cosmology of Neoplatonic provenance. According to this doctrine, through His intention (erāda) and will (mašiʾa), God first created a light (nur) and addressed it with the Qurʾānic creative imperative kon (be!). Through the duplication of its two letters, kāf and nun, the name acquired its feminine form Kuni. On God’s command, Kuni created from its light Qadar, its male assistant. Kuni and Qadar were thus the first two principles (aṣlān) of creation. It was out of the original heptad of consonantal letters of Kuni-Qadar, also called the higher letters (al-ḥoruf al-ʿolwiya), that all other letters and names emerged; and with the names there simultaneously appeared the very things they symbolized. This doctrine explained how God’s creative activity, through the intermediary of Kuni and Qadar, brought forth the beings of the spiritual world, also accounting for the creation of the lower physical world which culminated in the genesis of Man.

THE FATIMID PERIOD TO 487/1094

In this period, often referred to as the “golden age” of Ismaʿilism, the Ismaʿilis possessed an important state of their own and Ismaʿili thought and literature as well as daʿwa activities attained their summit. After his stay in Ramla, ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi arrived in Egypt in 291/904 where he spent a year. Subsequently, he was prevented from going to the Maghreb, where the dāʿi Abu ʿAbd-Allāh al-Šiʿi had been successfully active among the Kotāma Berbers from 280/893 (see Qāżi Noʿman, Eftetāḥ, pp. 71-222; Dachraoui, pp. 57-122; Halm, Empire of the Mahdi, pp. 9-128; M. Talbi, L’Émirat Aghlabide 184-296/800-909, Paris, 1966, pp. 579-672), because the Aḡlabid rulers of the region and their ʿAbbasid overlords had discovered the Imam’s plans and awaited to arrest him. ʿAbd-Allāh now headed for the remote town of Sejelmāsa, in southern Morocco, where he lived quietly for four years (292-96/905-9), maintaining his contacts with Abu ʿAbd-Allāh who had already commenced his conquest of Efriqia (the eastern part of the Maghreb) with the help of his Kotāma soldier-tribesmen. By 296/908, this Kotāma army had achieved much success signaling the fall of the Aḡlabids. On 1 Rajab 296/25 March 909, Abu ʿAbd-Allāh entered Raqqāda, the royal city outside of the Aḡlabid capital of Qayrawān, from where he governed Efriqia, as al-Mahdi’s deputy, for almost a whole year. In Ramażān 296/June 909, he set off at the head of his army for Sejalmāsa to hand over the reins of power to the Ismaʿili imam himself. ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi was acclaimed as caliph in a special ceremony in Sejelmāsa on 7 Du’l-Ḥejja 296/27 August 909. With these events the dawr al-satr in early Ismaʿilism had also ended. ʿAbd-Allāh al-Mahdi entered Raqqāda on 20 Rabiʿ II 297/4 January 910 and was immediately acclaimed as caliph (for a detailed eyewitness account of the establishment of Fatimid rule, see Ebn al-Haytam, Ketāb al-Monāẓarāt). The Ismaʿili Shiʿite caliphate of the Fatimids had now officially commenced in Efriqia. The new dynasty was named Fatimid (Fāṭemiya) after the Prophet’s daughter, Fāṭema, to whom al-Mahdi and his successors traced their ʿAlid ancestry.

The Fatimids did not abandon the Ismaʿili daʿwa on assuming power, as they entertained universal aspirations aiming to extend their rule over the entire Muslim community. However, the early Fatimid caliph-imams, ruling from Efriqia, encountered numerous difficulties while consolidating their power. In particular, they confronted the hostility of the Kharijite Berbers and the Sunni inhabitants of Qayrawān and other cities of Efriqia led by their Māleki jurists. Under the circumstances, the Ismaʿili daʿwa remained rather inactive in North Africa for some time (Madelung, 1999, pp. 97-104). Fatimid rule was established firmly in the Maghreb only under al-Moʿezz le-Din Allāh (341-365/953-975), who succeeded in transforming the Fatimid caliphate from a regional state into a great empire. He was also the first Fatimid caliph-imam to concern himself significantly with the propagation of the Ismaʿili daʿwa outside the Fatimid dominions, especially after the transference of the seat of the Fatimid state in 362/973 to Egypt, where he founded Cairo as his new capital city. The daʿwa policy of al-Moʿezz was based on a number of religio-political considerations. In particular, he was apprehensive of the success of the Qarmaṭi propaganda which not only undermined the efforts of the Fatimid Ismaʿili dāʿis operating in the same lands, notably Iraq, Persia and Transoxania, but also aroused the general anti-Ismaʿili sentiments of the Sunni Muslims who did not distinguish between the Ismaʿilis and the Qarmaṭis who had acquired a reputation for irreligiosity and lawlessness. Al-Moʿezz’s policies soon bore fruit as the Ismaʿili daʿwa and Fatimid cause were reinvigorated outside the Fatimid state. Most notably, Abu Yaʿqub Sejestāni (q.v.), the dāʿi of Sistān, Makrān and Khorasan, who had earlier belonged to the dissident Qarmaṭi faction, transferred his allegiance to the Fatimids; and, consequently, many of his followers in Persia and Central Asia acknowledged the Fatimid caliph-imam. Ismaʿilism also acquired a stronghold in Moltan, Sind, where an Ismaʿili principality was established.

The caliph-imam al-Moʿezz also permitted into the teachings of the Fatimid daʿwa the Neoplatonic cosmology elaborated by the dāʿis of the Iranian lands. Henceforth, this Neoplatonized cosmology was advocated by the Fatimid dāʿis in preference to the earlier mythological doctrine. In the course of the 9th/10th century, Moḥammad Nasafi, Abu Ḥātem Rāzi and Sejestāni had set about harmonizing their Ismaʿili Shiʿite theology with Neoplatonic philosophy. This led to the development of a unique intellectual tradition of philosophical theology in Ismaʿilism. These dāʿis wrote for the educated classes of society and aimed to attract them intellectually. This is why they expressed their theology, always revolving around the central Shiʿite doctrine of the imamate, in terms of the then most intellectually fashionable terminologies and themes. The Iranian dāʿis elaborated complex metaphysical systems of thought with a distinct Neoplatonized emanational cosmology. In this cosmology, fully elaborated in Sejestāni’s Ketāb al-yanābiʿ and other works, God is described as absolutely transcendent, beyond being and non-being, and thus unknowable (Sejestāni, Kašf al-maḥjub, pp. 4-15). Here, the Neoplatonic dyad of universal intellect (ʿaql) and universal soul (nafs) in the spiritual world replace Kuni and Qadar of the earlier cosmology; and the emanational chain of creation is traced finally to Man, while recognizing that God created everything in the spiritual and physical worlds all at once (Sejestāni, Etbāt, pp. 2-3, 28; Nāṣer-e Ḵosraw, Jāmeʿ al-ḥekmatayn, pp. 210-32). These dāʿis also expounded a doctrine of salvation as part of their cosmology. In their soteriology, the ultimate goal of salvation is the human soul’s progression towards his Creator in quest of a spiritual reward in an eternal afterlife. This depended on guidance provided by the authorized sources of wisdom in every era of history (see Daftary, 1990, pp. 234-45; Walker, 1993, pp. 67-142; idem, 1996, pp. 26-103). Neoplatonic philosophy also influenced the cosmology elaborated by the Isma ʿili-connected Eḵwān al-Ṣafāʾ (q.v.). It was also in al-Moʿezz’s time that Ismaʿili law was codified and its precepts began to be observed by the judiciary throughout the Fatimid state.

The Ismaʿilis had high esteem for learning and created distinctive traditions and institutions of learning under the Fatimids. The Fatimid daʿwa was particularly concerned with educating the converts in Ismaʿili esoteric doctrine, known as the ḥekma or “wisdom.” As a result, a variety of lectures or “teaching sessions,” generally designated as majāles (singular, majles), were organized. The private lectures on Ismaʿili esoteric doctrine, known as the majāles al-ḥekma or “sessions of wisdom,” were reserved exclusively for the Ismaʿili initiates who had already taken the oath of allegiance and secrecy. The lectures, delivered by the dāʿi al-doʿāt at the Fatimid palace, were approved beforehand by the imam. Only the imam was the source of the ḥekma; and the chief dāʿi, commonly called bāb (the Gate) in Ismaʿili sources, was merely the imam’s mouthpiece through whom the Is-maʿilis received their knowledge of Ismaʿili esoteric doctrines (see Kermāni, Rāḥat al-ʿaql, pp. 135, 138, 143, 205-8, 212-14). Many of these majāles were in due course collected and committed to writing. This Fatimid tradition of learning culminated in the Majāles al-Moʾayyadiya of the dāʿi al-Moʾayyad fi’l-Din Širāzi (see Maqrizi, al-Ḵeṭaṭ, I, pp. 390-91; Qalqašandi, X, pp. 434-39; Halm, “The Ismaʿili Oath of Allegiance,” pp. 98-112; idem, 1997, pp. 23-29, 41-55; Walker, 1997, pp. 182-86). Another main institution of learning founded by the Fatimids was the Dār al-ʿElm, the House of Knowledge, sometimes also called Dār al-Ḥekma. Established in 395/1005 by the caliph-imam al-Ḥākem (386-411/996-1021), a variety of religious and non-religious subjects were taught here and it was also equipped with a major library. Many Fatimid dāʿis received at least part of their training at the Dār al-ʿElm (Maqrizi, al-Ḵeṭaṭ, I, pp. 458-60; Halm, 1997, pp. 71-77; Walker, 1997, pp. 189-93).

Information on the structure and functioning of the Is-maʿili daʿwa organization was among the most guarded secrets of Ismaʿilism. The religio-political messages of the daʿwa were disseminated by networks of dāʿis within the Fatimid dominions as well as in other regions referred to as the jazāʾer (singular, jazira, “island”). Each jazira was placed under the charge of a high-ranking dāʿi referred to as ḥojja; and every ḥojja had a number of dāʿis of different ranks working under him. Organized in a strictly hierarchical manner, the Fatimid daʿwa was under the overall supervision of the imam and the dāʿi al-doʿāt, or bāb, who acted as its administrative head. The daʿwa organization developed over time and reached its full elaboration under the caliph-imam al-Mostanṣer (see Daftary, “Dāʿī,” in EIr, VI, pp. 590-92; idem, 1990, pp. 224-32; Stern, 1972, pp. 437-50; Hamdani, 1976, pp. 85-114). It was in non-Fatimid regions, in the jazāʾer, especially Yaman, Persia and Central Asia, that the Fatimid daʿwa achieved lasting success (Daftary, 1999, pp. 29-43; idem, “Medieval Ismaʿilis,” pp. 48-61). The daʿwa was intensified in Iraq and Persia under al-Ḥākem. Foremost among the dāʿis of this period was Ḥamid al-Din Kermāni (q.v.). A learned philosopher, he harmonized Ismaʿili theology with a variety of philosophical traditions in developing his own metaphysical system. In fact, Kermāni’s thought represents a unique tradition within the Iranian school of philosophical Ismaʿilism. He expounded a particular cosmology, replacing the Neoplatonic dyad of intellect and soul in the spiritual world by a system of ten separate intellects in partial adaptation of Fārābi’s Aristotelian cosmic system (Kermāni, Rāḥat al-ʿaql, pp. 134 ff.) Kermāni’s cosmology was not adopted by the Fatimid daʿwa; it later provided the basis for the fourth and final stage in the evolution of Ismaʿili cosmology at the hands of Ṭayyebi Mostaʿli dāʿis of Yaman (see W. Madelung, “Cosmogony and Cosmology. vi. In Ismaʿilism,” in EIr, VI, pp. 323-24; de Smet, 1995, pp. 16-377; Walker, 1999, pp. 80-117). Al-Ḥākem’s reign also coincided with the initial phase of what was to become known as the Druze religion, founded by a number of dāʿis who had come to Cairo from Persia and Central Asia, notably Aḵram, Ḥamza, and Darzi. These dāʿis proclaimed the end of the era of Islam and declared the divinity of al-Ḥākem. Kermāni was officially invited to Cairo around 405/1014 to refute the new extremist doctrines from a theological perspective (M. G. S. Hodgson, “Duruz,” in EI ² II, pp. 631-34; Bryer).

The Ismaʿili daʿwa activities outside the Fatimid dominions reached their peak in the long reign of al-Mostanṣer (427-487 /1036-1094), even after the Sunni Saljuqs had replaced the Shiʿite Buyids as overlords of the ʿAbbasids in 447/1055. The Fatimid dāʿis won many converts in Iraq and different parts of Persia and Central Asia. One of the most prominent dāʿis of this period was al-Moʾayyad fe’l-Din Širāzi who after his initial career in Fars settled in Cairo and played an active role in the affairs of the Fatimid dawla and Ismaʿili daʿwa. In 450/1058, al-Mostanṣer appointed him as dāʿi al-doʿāt, a post he held for twenty years, with the exception of a brief period, until his death in 470/1078 (see al-Moʾayyad fe’l-Din, Sirat; Klemm, pp. 2-63, 136-92). Al-Moʾayyad established closer relations between Cairo and several jaziras, especially Yaman where Ismaʿilism had persisted in a dormant form throughout the 4th/10th century. By the time of al-Mostanṣer, the leadership of the daʿwa in Yaman had fallen into the hands of the dāʿi ʿAli b. Moḥammad al-Ṣolayḥi, an important chieftain of the Banu Hamdān in the mountainous region of Ḥarāz. ʿAli al-Ṣolayḥi rose in Ḥarāz in 439/1047, marking the effective foundation of the Ṣolayḥid dynasty ruling over different parts of Yaman as vassals of the Fatimids until 532/1138. On ʿAli’s death in 459/1067, Lamak b. Mālek Ḥammādi was appointed as chief dāʿi of Yaman while ʿAli’s son Aḥmad al-Mokarram succeeded his father merely as head of the Ṣolayḥid state. The dāʿi Lamak had earlier spent five years in Cairo, studying with the chief dāʿi al-Moʾayyad. From the latter part of Aḥmad al-Mokarram’s reign, during which time the Ṣolayḥids lost much of Yaman to Zaydis there, effective authority in the Ṣolayḥid state was transferred to al-Mokarram’s consort, al-Maleka al-Sayyeda Ḥorra. She also played an increasingly important role in the affairs of the Yamani daʿwa culminating in her appointment as the ḥojja of Yaman by al-Mostanṣer. This represented the first application of a high rank in the daʿwa hierarchy to a woman (ʿOmāra b. ʿAli al-Ḥakami, Taʾriḵ al-Yaman, in Kay, 1892, text pp. 1-102, tr. pp. 1-137; Ḥ. F. al-Hamdāni, 1955, pp. 62-231). The Ṣolayḥids also played an active part in the renewed efforts of the Fatimids to spread the daʿwa on the Indian subcontinent (see al-Mostanṣer, al-Sejellāt, pp. 167-69, 203-6). The Ismaʿili community founded in Gojarāt by dāʿis sent from Yaman in the second half of the 5th/11th century evolved into the modern day Ṭayyebi Bohra community.

Meanwhile, the Ismaʿili daʿwa had continued to spread in many parts of the Iranian world, now incorporated into the Saljuq sultanate. By the early 460s/1070s, the Persian Ismaʿilis in the Saljuq dominions were under the leadership of ʿAbd al-Malek b. ʿAṭṭāš who had his secret headquarters in Isfahan. He was also responsible for launching the career of Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ (q.v.) who in due course led the Ismaʿili daʿwa in Persia. In Badaḵšān and other eastern parts of the Iranian world too the daʿwa had continued to spread after the downfall of the Sāmānids in 395/1005 (Ebn al-Atir, IX, pp. 211, 358, X, pp. 122 ff., 165-66; Barthold, pp. 251, 304-5, 316-18). One of the most eminent dāʿis of al-Mostanṣer’s time, Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow played an important part in propagating Is-maʿilism in Central Asia as the ḥojja of Khorasan; he also spread the daʿwa to Ṭabarestān and other Caspian provinces. It was mainly during his period of exile in Yomgān that Nāṣer extended the daʿwa throughout Badaḵšān while maintaining his contacts with the dāʿi al-Moʾayyad and the daʿwa headquarters in Cairo. In fact, the Ismaʿilis of Badaḵšān, now divided between Tajikistan and Afghanistan, and their offshoot groups in the Hindu Kush region, now situated in Hunza and other northern areas of Pakistan, regard Šāh Nāṣer-e Ḵosraw as the founder of their communities (Ivanow, 1948; Berthels, Nasir-i Khosrov; Corbin, “Nāṣir-i Khusrau,” pp. 520-42; Daftary, 1990, pp. 215-18; Hunsberger, pp. 220-54). By the time the Qarmaṭi state of Baḥrayn was finally uprooted in 470/1077-78 by some local tribal chieftains, other Qarmaṭi groups in Persia, Iraq, and elsewhere too had either disintegrated or switched their allegiance to the Ismaʿili daʿwa of the Fatimids. There was now, once gain, only one unified Ismaʿili daʿwa under the supreme leadership of the Fatimid caliph-imam.

During the long reign of al-Mostanṣer the Fatimid caliphate had already embarked on its decline resulting from factional fighting in the Fatimid armies and other political and economic difficulties. The unruliness of the Turkish troops led to a complete breakdown of law and order, and drove al-Mostanṣer to appeal to Badr al-Jamāli, an Armenian general in the service of the Fatimids, for help. Badr arrived in Cairo in 466/1074 and soon assumed the leadership of civil, judicial and religious administration in addition to being “commander of the armies” (amir al-joyuš), his main source of power. He managed to restore peace and relative prosperity to Egypt in the course of his long vizierate of some twenty years, as the de facto ruler of the Fatimid state. Badr died in 487/1094, having arranged for his son Afżal to succeed him in the vizierate. Henceforth, real power in the Fatimid state remained in the hands of the Fatimid viziers who also commanded the troops, whence their title of “Vizier of the Sword” (wazir al-sayf). They were also in charge of the daʿw organization and activities.

Al-Mostanṣer, the eighth Fatimid caliph and eighteenth Ismaʿili imam, died in Du’l-Ḥejja 487/December 1094, a few months after Badr al-Jamāli. Thereupon, the unified Ismaʿili daʿwa split into two rival factions, as al-Mostanṣer’s son and original heir-designate, Nezār, was deprived of his succession rights by Afżal who quickly installed Nezār’s younger half-brother to the Fatimid throne with the title of al-Mostaʿli be’llāh (487-95/1094-1101). The two factions were later designated as the Nezāriya and Mostaʿliya. Afżal immediately obtained for al-Mostaʿli the allegiance of the notables of the Fatimid court and the leaders of the Ismaʿili daʿwa in Cairo who now also recognized al-Mostaʿli’s imamate. Nezār refused to pay homage to al-Mostaʿli and fled to Alexandria where he rose in revolt, but he was defeated and killed in 488/1095. The imamate of al-Mostaʿli was recognized by the Ismaʿili communities of Egypt, Yaman, and western India. These Ismaʿilis, who depended on the Fatimid regime, later traced the imamate in the progeny of al-Mostaʿli. The bulk of the Ismaʿilis of Syria, too, joined the Mostaʿli camp. On the other hand, the Ismaʿilis of Persia who were then already under the leadership of Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ supported the succession rights of Nezār. The Central Asian Ismaʿilis seem to have remained uninvolved in the Nezāri-Mostaʿli schism for quite some time (al-Mostanṣer, al-Sejellāt, pp. 109-18; Ebn al-Qalānesi, p. 128; Ebn Moyassar, pp. 59 ff., Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 443 ff.; Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, III, pp. 11 ff.; idem, al-Ḵeṭaṭ, I, pp. 422-23; Ebn Taḡriberdi, V, pp. 142-45).

MOSTAʿLI ISMAʿILISM

The Fatimid state survived for another 77 years after the Nezāri-Mostaʿli schism of 487/1094. These decades witnessed the rapid decline of the Fatimid caliphate which was beset by continuing crises. Al-Mostaʿli and his successors on the Fatimid throne, who were mostly minors and remained powerless in the hands of their viziers, continued to be recognized as imams by the Mostaʿli Is-maʿilis who themselves soon split into Ḥāfeẓi and Ṭayyebi branches. After al-Mostaʿli’s premature death in 495/1101, the all-powerful vizier Afżal placed his five-year-old son on the throne with the caliphal title of al-Āmer be-Aḥkām Allāh. Afżal was murdered in 515/1121; and when al-Āmer himself was assassinated in 524/1130, the Mostaʿli Ismaʿilis were confronted with a major crisis of succession. A son, named Ṭayyeb, had been born to al-Āmer a few months before his death; and he had been designated as the heir. But on al-Āmer’s death, power was assumed by his cousin, ʿAbd-al-Majid, the eldest member of the Fatimid family, and nothing more was heard of Ṭayyeb. After a brief confusing period in Fatimid history, when Twelver Shiʿism instead of Ismaʿilism was adopted as the official religion of the Fatimid state by Afżal’s son Kotayfāt who had succeeded to the vizierate, ʿAbd al-Majid re-emerged on the scene in 526/1132, proclaiming himself as caliph and imam with the title of al-Ḥāfeż le-Din Allāh; and Ismaʿilism was reinstated as the state’s religion (Ebn al-Qalānesi, pp. 203, 229, 242 ff., 262, 270, 272-73, 295-96, 308; Ebn Ẓāfer, pp. 94-101; Ebn Moyassar, pp. 113-41; Ebn al-Dawādāri, VI, pp. 506-56; Maqrizi, Etteʿāẓ, III, pp. 135-92; Ebn Tāḡriberdi, V, pp. 237-87).

The irregular proclamation of al-Ḥāfeẓ as imam, whose father had not been imam previously, caused a major schism in Mostaʿli Ismaʿilism. As in the case of the Nezāri-Mostaʿli split, the Mostaʿli daʿwa headquarters in Cairo endorsed the imamate of al-Ḥāfeẓ, who claimed al-Āmer had personally designated him (see Qalqašandi, IX, pp. 291-97). Therefore, it was also acknowledged by the Mostaʿli Ismaʿilis of Egypt and Syria as well as a portion of the Mostaʿlis of Yaman. These Ismaʿilis, who recognized al-Ḥāfeẓ and the later Fatimid caliphs as their imams, became known as the Ḥāfeẓiya. On the other hand, the Ṣolayḥid queen of Yaman, al-Sayyeda, who had already drifted away from Cairo, upheld Ṭayyeb’s cause and recognized him as al-Āmer’s successor to the imamate. As a result, the Mostaʿli community of the Ṣolayḥid state, too, recognized Ṭayyeb’s imamate. These Mostaʿli Ismaʿilis of Yaman, with some minority groups in Egypt and Syria, initially known as the Āmeriya, became later designated as the Ṭayyebiya. Ḥāfeẓiya Is-maʿilism disappeared completely soon after the collapse of the Fatimid dynasty and caliphate. The Ayyubid Ṣalāḥ al-Din, the last Fatimid vizier, ended Fatimid rule in 567/1171 and thereafter persecuted the Ismaʿilis of Egypt. Henceforth, Mostaʿli Ismaʿilism survived only in its Ṭayyebi form (Casanova, pp. 415-45; Stern, 1951, pp. 193-255; Daftary, 1990, pp. 256-84).

Ṭayyebi Ismaʿilism found its permanent stronghold in Yaman, where it received the initial support of the Ṣolayḥid queen al-Sayyeda who had been looking after the affairs of the Mostaʿli daʿwa there with the help of the dāʿi Lamak b. Mālek Ḥammādi and then his son Yaḥyā (d. 520/1126). It was soon after 526/1132 that the Ṣolayḥid queen broke her relations with Cairo and declared Yaḥyā’s successor Doʾayb b. Musā as the dāʿi moṭlaq, or dāʿi with absolute authority, to lead the affairs of the Ṭayyebi Mostaʿli daʿwa on behalf of Ṭayyeb, who was thought to be in hiding. This marked the foundation of the Ṭayyebi daʿwa independently of the Ṣolayḥid state. On Doʾayb’s death in 546/1151, Ebrāhim Ḥāmedi succeeded to the headship of the Ṭayyebi daʿwa as the second dāʿi moṭlaq. The Ṭayyebi daʿwa spread successfully in the Ḥarāz region even though it did not receive the support of any Yamani rulers after the death of the Ṣolayḥid queen in 532/1138. After Ebrāhim Ḥāmedi (d. 557/1162), the position of dāʿi moṭlaq remained hereditary among his descendants until 605/1209 when it passed to ʿAli b. Moḥammad al-Walid of the Banu al-Walid al-Anf family of the Qorayš, and it then remained in this family, with minor interruptions, until 946/1539. The Ṭayyebi Ismaʿilis are of the opinion that in the current period of satr, initiated by Ṭayyeb’s own concealment, their imamate has been handed down among his descendants down to the present time. All these imams have remained in concealment, and in their absence the dāʿi moṭlaqs lead the affairs of the Ṭayyebi daʿwa and community (Hamdani, 1970, pp. 279 ff.; Daftary, 1990, pp. 285-91; idem, “Sayyida Ḥurra: The Ismāʿīlī Ṣulayḥid Queen of Yemen,” in G. R. G. Hambly, ed., Women in the Medieval Islamic World, New York, 1998, pp. 117-30).

In the doctrinal field, the Ṭayyebis maintained the Fatimid traditions, and preserved a good portion of the Ismaʿili texts of the Fatimid period. Similarly to the Fatimids, they emphasized the equal importance of the ẓāher and bāṭen aspects of religion, also retaining the earlier interest of the Ismaʿilis in cyclical history and cosmology which served as the basis of their gnostic, esoteric ḥaqāʾeq system of religious thought with its distinctive eschatological themes. This system was founded largely by Ebrāhim Hāmedi who drew extensively on Kermāni’s Rāḥat al-ʿaql and synthesized its cosmological doctrine of the ten separate intellects with gnostic mythical elements (see Hāmedi, Kanz al-walad). This represented the final modification of Neoplatonic cosmology in Ismaʿili thought (Corbin, 1983, pp. 37-58, 65 ff., 76 ff., 103 ff., 173-81; Daftary, 1990, pp. 291-97). The Ṭayyebi daʿwa organization has drawn on Fatimid antecedents with certain modifications. As in the case of imams, every dāʿi moṭlaq has appointed his successor by the rule of the naṣṣ. The dāʿi moṭlaq was normally assisted in the affairs of the Ṭayyebi daʿwa by several subordinate dāʿis designated as maʾdun and mokāser.

Meanwhile, the Ṭayyebi dāʿi moṭlaqs in Yaman maintained close relations with the Ṭayyebi community in western India. There, the Ismaʿili converts, mostly of Hindu descent, were known as Bohras, a name believed to have been derived from the Gojarāti term vohorvu meaning “to trade,” since the daʿwa originally spread among the trading community of Gojarāt. The Ismaʿili Bohras of Gojarāt were persecuted under the Sunni sultans of the region from 793/1391, forcing them to observe taqiya in the guise of Sunnism. With the establishment of Mongol rule in 980/1572, however, Bohras began to enjoy a certain degree of religious freedom and conversions to Sunni Islam ended.

On the death of the twenty-sixth dāʿi moṭlaq, Dāʾud b. ʿAjabšāh, in 997/1589, his succession was disputed, leading to the Dāʾudi-Solaymāni schism in the Ṭayyebi daʿwa and community. The great majority of Ṭayyebis, then located in India, acknowledged Dāʾud Borhān al-Din (d. 1021/1612) as their new dāʿi and became known as Dāʾudis. A small number of Yamani Ṭayyebis, too, supported the Dāʾudi cause. On the other hand, a minority of all Ṭayyebis, who accounted for the bulk of the community in Yaman, recognized Solaymān b. Ḥasan (d. 1005/1597) as their new, twenty-seventh dāʿi; they became known as Solaymānis. Henceforth, the Dāʾudi and Solay-māni Ṭayyebis followed separate lines of dāʿis. The Dāʾudi dāʿis continued to reside in India, while the headquarters of the Solaymāni daʿwa were established in Yaman (Moḥammad ʿAli, Mawsem-e bahār, III, pp. 169-259; Misra, pp. 27-31; Daftary, 1990, pp. 299-306). Subsequently, the Dāʾudi Bohras were further subdivided in India due to periodical challenges to the authority of their dāʿi moṭlaq.

In 1200/1785, the headquarters of the Dāʾudi daʿwa was transferred to Surat, where the forty-third dāʿi, ʿAbd ʿAli Sayf al-Din (1213-32/1798-1817), founded a seminary known as Sayfi Dars, also Jāmeʿa Sayfia, for the education of Dāʾudi scholars and the functionaries of the community. This seminary, with a major library, has continued to serve as an institution of traditional Islamic learning for the Dāʾudi Bohras. Since 1232/1817, the office of the dāʿi moṭlaq of the Dāʾudi Ṭayyebis has remained among the descendants of Šayḵ Jiwanji Awrangā-bādi, while the community has experienced intermittent strife and crisis rooted in opposition to the dāʿi’s authority. The present dāʿi moṭlaq of the Dāʾudi daʿwa, Sayyednā Borhān al-Din, succeeded to his position as the fifty-second in the series in 1385/1965. The total Dāʾudi population of the world is currently (2002) estimated at around 900,000, located mainly in South Asia. Since the 1920s, Bombay, with its largest single concentration of Dāʾudi Bohras, has served as the permanent administrative seat of the Dāʾudi dāʿi moṭlaq. The Ṭayyebi Bohras, together with the Nezāri Khojas, were also among the earliest Asian communities to settle, during the nineteenth century and subsequently, in East Africa (Amiji, 1969, pp. 141-81; idem, 1975, pp. 27-61).

In Yaman, the leadership of the Solaymāni Ṭayyebis has remained hereditary, since 1088/1677, with few exceptions, in the same Makrami family. Unlike the Dāʾudis, the Solaymānis have not experienced succession disputes and schisms. The Solaymāni dāʿis established their headquarters in Najrān, in northeastern Yaman, and ruled over that region with the military support of the local Banu Yām. In the twentieth century, the political prominence of the Solaymāni dāʿis, checked earlier by the Ottomans, was further curtailed by the Saʿudi family; Najran was, in fact, annexed to Saudi Arabia in 1353/1934. The present dāʿi moṭlaq of the Solaymānis, the forty-ninth in the series, Sayyednā Šarafi Ḥosayn Makrami who succeeded to office in 1396/1976, lives in Saudi Arabia. At present, the Solaymāni Ṭayyebi Ismaʿilis of Yaman number around 70,000 persons. The Solaymāni Bohras represent a very small community of a few thousands in India (Daftary, 1990, pp. 318-23).

NEZĀRI ISMAʿILISM OF THE ALAMUT PERIOD

By 487/1094, Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ (q.v.), who preached the Ismaʿili daʿwa on behalf of the Fatimids within the Saljuq dominions in Persia, had emerged as the leader of the Persian Ismaʿilis. He had already been following an independent policy, and his seizure of the mountain fortress of Alamut (q.v.) in 483/1090 signalled the commencement of an open revolt against the Saljuq Turks as well as the foundation of what was to become the Nezāri Ismaʿili state. As an Ismaʿili Shiʿite, Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ could not have tolerated the anti-Shiʿite policies of the Saljuqs, who as the new champions of Sunni Islam aimed to uproot the Fatimids. Ḥasan’s revolt was also an expression of Persian “national” sentiments, as the alien rule of the Saljuq Turks was intensely detested by the Persians of different social classes. This may explain why he substituted Persian for Arabic as the religious language of the Ismaʿilis of Persia (see Daftary, “Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ and the Origins of the Nizārī Ismaʿili Movement,” in Daftary, ed., 1996, pp. 181-204). It was under such circumstances that in al-Mostanṣer’s succession dispute Ḥasan supported Nezār’s cause and severed his relations with the Fatimid regime and the daʿwa headquarters in Cairo which had supported al-Mostaʿli. By this decision, Ḥasan had founded the independent Nezāri Ismaʿili daʿwa on behalf of the Nezāri imam. As a result of this decision, the Nezāri daʿwa survived the downfall of the Fatimid dynasty, a pattern similar to the subsequent fate of the Ṭayyebi daʿwa in Yaman (Jovayni, III, pp. 186-216; tr. Boyle, II, pp. 666-83; Rašid al-Din, pp. 97-137; Kāšāni, pp. 133-72; Hodgson, 1955, pp. 41-98; Daftary, 1990, pp. 324-71).

The revolt of the Persian Ismaʿilis soon acquired a distinctive pattern and method of struggle, adapted to the decentralized power structure of the Saljuq sultanate and their much superior military power. Ḥasan devised a strategy to overwhelm the Saljuqs locality by locality and from a multitude of impregnable mountain strongholds. Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ did not divulge the name of Nezār’s successor to the imamate. In fact, numismatic evidence shows that Nezār’s own name appeared on coins minted at Alamut for about seventy years after his death in 488/1095, while his progeny were blessed anonymously (Miles, pp. 155-62). The early Nezāri Ismaʿilis were thus left without an accessible imam in another dawr al-satr; and, as in the pre-Fatimid period of concealment, the absent imam was represented in the community by a ḥojja, his chief representative. Ḥasan and his next two successors at Alamut as heads of the Nezāri daʿwa and state, were recognized as such ḥojjas (Haft bāb-e Bābā Sayyednā, pp. 21-22; Abu Esḥāq Qohestāni, text p. 23). It seems that already in Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ’s time many Nezāris believed that a son or grandson of Nezār had been secretly brought from Egypt to Persia, and he became the progenitor of the line of the Nezāri imams who later emerged at Alamut (Jovayni, III, pp. 180-81, 231-37; tr. Boyle, II, pp. 663, 691-95; Rašid al-Din, pp. 79, 166-68; Kāšāni, pp. 115, 202-4).

From early on in the Alamut period, the outsiders had the impression that the Persian Ismaʿilis had initiated a “new preaching” (al-daʿwa al-jadida) in contrast to the “old preaching” (al-daʿwa al-qadima) of the Fatimid times. The “new preaching” did not, however, represent any new doctrines; it was merely a reformulation of the old Shiʿite doctrine of taʿlim, or authoritative teaching by the imam. It was mainly Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ himself who restated this doctrine in a theological treatise entitled al-Foṣul al-arbaʿa, or The Four Chapters. This treatise, originally written in Persian, has been preserved only in parts (see Šahrastāni, pp. 150-52; tr. Gimaret and Monnot, I, pp. 560-65; Jovayni, III, pp. 195-99; tr. Boyle, II, pp. 671-73; Rašid-al-Din, pp. 105-7; Kāšāni, pp. 142-43; Hodgson, 1955, pp. 51-61, 325-28). The doctrine of taʿlim, emphasizing the autonomous teaching authority of each imam in his own time, became the central doctrine of the Nezāris who, henceforth, were designated also as the Taʿlimiya. The intellectual challenge posed to the Sunni establishment by the doctrine of taʿlim, which also refuted the legitimacy of the ʿAbbasid caliph as the spiritual spokesman of all Muslims, called forth the reaction of the Sunnis. Many Sunni scholars, led by Ḡazāli, attacked the Ismaʿili doctrine of taʿlim (see Ḡazāli, Fażāʾeḥ al-Bāṭeniya, ed. ʿA. Badawi, Cairo, 1964; Mitha, pp. 28-102).

By 489/1096, when the fortress of Lamasar was seized, Ḥasan had acquired or built numerous mountain strongholds in Rudbār, the center of Nezāri power. At the same time, the Ismaʿilis had come to possess a network of fortresses and several towns in Qohestān, in southeastern Khorasan, which remained the second most important territory of the Nezāri state. Later, the Nezāris acquired Gerdkuh (q.v.) and other fortresses in the regions of Qumes, Arrajān and Zagros. By the opening years of the 6th/12th century, Ḥasan had begun to extend his activities into Syria by sending Persian dāʿis from Alamut. By the final years of Ḥasan’s life, the anti-Saljuq revolt of the Persian Nezāris had lost its effectiveness, much in the same way that the Saljuqs under Barkiāroq and Moḥammad Tapar had failed in their prolonged military campaigns to uproot the Persian Ismaʿilis from their strongholds. The Ismaʿili-Saljuq relations had now entered a new phase of “stalemate” (Daftary, 1990, pp. 340-44, 361-65; Hillenbrand, pp. 205-20).

After Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ’s death in 518/1124, Kiā Bozorg-Omid (q.v.) followed as the head of the Nezāri daʿwa and state. A capable administrator like his predecessor, Bozorg-Omid (518-32/1124-38) maintained the policies of Ḥasan and further strengthened and extended the Nezāri state. The Ismaʿili-Saljuq stalemate essentially continued during the long reign of Bozorg-Omid’s son Mo-ḥammad (532-57/1138-62) as the third lord of Alamut (Jovayni, III, pp. 216-22; tr. Boyle, II, pp. 683-86; Rašid al-Din, pp. 137-61; Kāšāni, pp. 172-99; Daftary, 1990, pp. 371-86). By then, the Nezāri state had acquired its distinctive administrative structure. Each Nezāri territory was placed under the overall leadership of a chief dāʿi appointed from Alamut; the leader of the Qohestāni Nezāris was known as moḥtašam. These dāʿis, as well as the commanders of major strongholds, enjoyed a large degree of independence and local initiative, contributing to the dynamism and resilience of the Nezāri movement. Being preoccupied with their struggle and survival in an extremely hostile environment, the Nezāris produced military commanders rather than learned theologians of the types operating under the Fatimids. Consequently, the literary activities of the Nezāris were rather limited during the Alamut period. Nevertheless, the early Nezāris did maintain a sophisticated outlook and a literary tradition, elaborating their teachings in response to changed circumstances. Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ himself is credited with establishing an impressive library at Alamut. Other major fortresses in Persia and Syria, too, were later equipped with significant collections of manuscripts, documents and scientific instruments. Firmly united with a remarkable sense of mission, the Nezāris acknowledged the supreme leadership of Alamut and obeyed without any dissent the religious policies initiated at that fortress initially by the Nezāri imam’s ḥojjas and, subsequently, by the imams themselves. Meanwhile, the Nezāris had been eagerly expecting the appearance of their imam, who had remained inaccessible since Nezār’s murder in 488/1095.

The fourth lord of Alamut, Ḥasan II (q.v.), to whom the Nezāris referred with the expression ʿalā ḏekrehe’l-salām (on his mention be peace), succeeded to leadership in 557/1162 and, soon after, declared the qiāma or resurrection initiating a new phase in the religious history of the early Nezāris. On 17 Ramażān 559/8 August 1164, in the presence of the representatives of different Nezāri communities who had gathered at Alamut, he delivered a sermon in which he proclaimed the qiāma, the long awaited Last Day. About two months later, a similar ceremony was held at the fortress of Moʾmenābād, near Birjand, and the earlier ḵoṭba and message were read out by Raʾis Moẓaffar, the moḥtašam in Qohestān. There, Ḥasan II’s position was more clearly equated with that of al-Mostanṣer as God’s caliph (ḵalifa) on earth, implicitly claiming the status of imam for the lord of Alamut (Jovayni, III, pp. 222-39; tr. Boyle, II, pp. 686-97; Rašid-al-Din, pp. 162-70; Kāšāni, pp. 199-208; Abu Esḥāq Qohestāni, text pp. 19, 24, 38-39, 40-44, 46-47, 53, 58, tr. pp. 19, 23, 38, 40-44, 46-47, 53-54, 58; Hodgson, 1955, pp. 146-59; Lewis, 1967, pp. 70-75, Daftary, 1990, pp. 385-91).

Ḥasan II relied heavily on Ismaʿili taʾwil and earlier traditions, interpreting qiāma symbolically and spiritually for the Nezāris. Accordingly, qiāma meant nothing more than the manifestation of unveiled truth (ḥaqiqa) in the person of the Nezāri imam; it was a spiritual resurrection only for the Nezāris who acknowledged the rightful imam of the time and were now capable of understanding the truth, the esoteric essence of Islam. It was in this sense that Paradise was actualized for the Nezāris in this world. The Nezāris, like Sufis, were now to rise to a spiritual level of existence, from ẓāher to bāṭen, from šariʿa to ḥaqiqa, or from the literal interpretation of the law to an understanding of its spiritual essence and the eternal truths. On the other hand, the “outsiders,” the non-Nezāris who were incapable of recognizing the truth, were rendered spiritually non-existent. The imam proclaiming the qiāma would be the qāʾem al-qiāma, or the lord of resurrection, a rank which in Ismaʿili religious hierarchy was always higher than that of an ordinary imam.

Ḥasan II’s son and successor Nur-al-Din Moḥammad devoted his long reign (561-607/1166-1210) to a systematic doctrinal elaboration of the qiāma. The exaltation of the autonomous teaching authority of the present Nezāri imam now became the central feature of the Nezāri thought; and qiāma came to imply a complete personal transformation of the Nezāris who were expected to perceive the imam in his true spiritual reality. Nur-al-Din Moḥammad also made every Nezāri imam potentially a qāʾem, capable of inaugurating the era of qiāma. In the spiritual world of resurrection there would no longer be any need for ranks of the daʿwa intervening between the imam-qāʾem and his followers. There would now remain only three categories of persons, reflecting different levels of existence in terms of relationships to the Nezāri imam. There are the “people of opposition” (ahl-e tażādd), the non-Nezāris who exist only in the realm of appearances (ẓāher) and are spiritually non-existent. Secondly, there are the ordinary followers of the Nezāri imam, the “people of gradation” (ahl-e tarattob), who have penetrated the šariʿa to its inner meaning. However, they have access only to partial truth, as they still do not fully understand the bāṭen. Finally, there are the “people of union” (ahl-e vaḥdat), the Nezāri super-elite, or the aḵaṣṣ-e ḵāṣṣ, who perceived the imam in his true spiritual reality as the epiphany (maẓhar) of the word (kalema) of God (Ṭusi, Rawża, text pp. 104-5, 112, tr. pp. 119, 128-29; idem, Sayr, text pp. 17-18, tr. pp. 47-48); only they arrive at the realm of the ḥaqiqa, in a sense the bāṭen behind the bāṭen, where they find full truth and as such, they enjoy full salvation in the paradisal state actualized for them in this world. It seems that the privileged state of the ahl-e vaḥdat was attainable by only a few. Nur-al-Din Mo-ḥammad also explicitly affirmed the Nezārid Fatimid descent of his father and, therefore, himself, explaining that Ḥasan II was in fact imam and the son of a descendant of Nezār b. al-Mostanṣer who had earlier found refuge in Alamut. Henceforth, the Nezāris recognized the lords of Alamut, beginning with Ḥasan II, as their imams (Haft bāb-e Bābā Sayyednā, pp. 4-42; tr. Hodgson, in his Order of Assassins, pp. 279-324; Ṭusi, Rawża, text pp. 42, 44-45, 47-56, 98-99, 101-2, tr. pp. 46-47, 49-50, 52-63, 111-12, 115-16; Jovayni, III, 240-42; tr. Boyle, II, pp. 697-99; Rašid-al-Din, pp. 170-73; Kāšāni, pp. 208-14; Hodgson, 1955, pp. 160-84, 210-17).

Meanwhile, the Syrian Nezāris had entered into an important phase of their history under Rāšed-al-Din Senān, their most famous leader who had been appointed as chief dāʿi in Syria by Ḥasan II soon after his own accession in 557/1162. Senān reorganized and strengthened the Syrian Nezāri daʿwa, also consolidating their network of fortresses in the Jabal Bahrāʾ, in central Syria. Aiming to safeguard his community, he entered into intricate and shifting alliances with the major neighboring powers and rulers, notably the Crusaders, the Zangids and Ṣalāh-al-Din. Senān taught his own version of the doctrine of qiāma, which did not acquire deep roots in the Syrian Nezāri community. The only one of the Syrian dāʿis to act somewhat independently of Alamut, Senān led the Syrian Nezāris for almost three decades to the peak of their power and fame until his death in 589/1193 (Abu Ferās Šehāb al-Din Maynaqi, Faṣl, in Guyard, pp. 387-489; B. Lewis, “Kamāl al-Dīn’s Biography of Rāšid al-Dīn Sinān,” Arabica 13, 1966, pp. 225-67; idem, 1967, pp. 110-18; Hodgson, 1955, pp. 185-209; Mirza, pp. 22-39; Daftary, 1994, pp. 67-74, 94 ff.).

Nur-al-Din Moḥammad’s son and successor, Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan (607-18/1210-21), proclaimed his own daring religious policy, aimed at redressing the isolation of the Nezāris from the larger world of Sunni Islam. Consequently, he publicly repudiated the doctrine of qiāma and ordered his followers to observe the šariʿa in its Sunni form, inviting Sunni jurists to instruct his people. Indeed, Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan did his utmost to convince the outside world of his new policy. In 608/1211, the ʿAbbasid caliph al-Nāṣer acknowledged the Nezāri imam’s rapprochement with Sunni Islam and issued a decree to that effect. Henceforth, the rights of Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan to Nezāri territories were officially recognized by the ʿAbbasid caliph, as well as by the Ḵvārazm-Šāhs, who were then establishing their own empire in Persia as successors to the Saljuqs, and by other Sunni rulers. The Nezāris accepted their imam’s new instructions without any opposition. They evidently viewed Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan’s declarations as a reimposition of taqiya, which had been lifted in qiāma times; the observance of taqiya could, thus, imply any type of accommodation to the outside world as deemed necessary by the infallible imam. Be that as it may, the Nezāri imam had now successfully achieved peace and security for his community and state (Jovayni, III, pp. 243-49; tr. Boyle, II, pp. 699-704; Rašid-al-Din, pp. 174-78; Kāšāni, pp. 214-17; Hodgson, 1955, pp. 217-25; Daftary, 1990, pp. 404-7).

Under ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad (618-53/1221-55), Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan’s son and successor as the penultimate lord of Alamut, the Sunni šariʿa was gradually relaxed within the community and the Nezāri traditions associated with qiāma were revived, although the Nezāris continued to appear to outsiders in Sunni guise. The Nezāri leadership now also made a sustained effort to explain the different doctrinal declarations and religious policies of the lords of Alamut. All these teachings were interpreted comprehensively within a coherent theological framework, aiming to provide satisfactory explanations for the seemingly contradictory policies adopted at Alamut. Intellectual life indeed flourished in the long reign of ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad, receiving a special impetus from the influx of outside scholars, who fled the first waves of the Mongol invasions and took refuge in the Nezāri fortress communities. Foremost among such scholars, who availed themselves of the Nezāri libraries and patronage of learning, was Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi, who made major contributions to the Nezāri Ismaʿili thought of the late Alamut period during his three decades amongst them in Qohestān and Rudbār.

It is mainly through Ṭusi’s extant Ismaʿili writings, notably his Rowżat al-taslim, that we have an exposition of Nezāri thought of the Alamut period as it developed during qiāma and its aftermath. Qiāma, Ṭusi explained, was not necessarily a final eschatological event, but a transitory condition of life when the veil of taqiya would be lifted to make the unveiled truth accessible. In the current cycle of history, however, the full qiāma, or Great Resurrection (qiāmat-e qiāmāt) would still occur at the end of the era initiated by the Prophet Moḥammad. Be that as it may, the identification between šariʿa and taqiya, implied by the teachings of Ḥasan II, was now made explicit by Ṭusi who also identified qiāma with ḥaqiqa. Thus, the imposition of the Sunni šariʿa by Jalāl-al-Din Ḥasan was presented as a return to taqiya, and to a new period of satr or concealment, when the truth (ḥaqiqa) would be once again concealed in the bāṭen of religion. The condition of qiāma could, in principle, be granted by the current Nezāri imam at any time, because every imam was potentially also an imam-qāʾem. Thus, Ṭusi now expounded a new doctrine of satr. In his integrated theological presentation, human life could alternate between periods of qiāma, when reality is manifest, and satr, when it would be concealed, requiring the observance of taqiya. In this sense, the term satr was redefined to imply the concealment of the religious truths and the true spiritual reality of the imam, and not the physical inaccessibility of his person, as had been the cases in the pre-Fatimid and early Alamut periods (Ṭusi, Rawża, text pp. 61-63, 101-2, 110, 117-19, 132-33, 143, 145, 147, tr. pp. 67-69, 115-16, 126, 136-38, 154-55, 173, and elsewhere; Hodgson, 1955, pp. 225-38; Daftary, 1990, pp. 407-12). The teachings of the late Alamut period brought the Nezāris even closer to the esoteric traditions more commonly associated with Sufism.

Nezāri fortunes in Persia were rapidly reversed when the collapse of the Ḵvārazmian Empire brought them into direct confrontation with the invading Mongols. When the Great Khan Möngke decided to complete the Mongol conquests of western Asia, he assigned a priority to the destruction of the Nezāri Ismaʿili state, a task completed with some difficulty in 654/1256 by Hülegü who led the main Mongol expedition into Persia. Shortly before, in 653/1255, ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad had been succeeded by his eldest son Rokn-al-Din Ḵoršāh, who would rule for exactly one year as the last lord of Alamut (Jovayni, III, pp. 259-78; tr. Boyle, II, 712-25; Rašid-al-Din, pp. 185-95; Kāšāni, pp. 224-33; Daftary, 1990, pp. 416 ff., 421-30). The youthful imam engaged in a complex, and ultimately futile, series of negotiations with Hülegü. On 29 Šawwāl 654/19 November 1256, Ḵoršāh descended from the fortress of Maymundez in Rudbār in the company of Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi and Nezāri dignitaries, and surrendered to the Mongols. With the fall of Alamut a month later, the fate of the Nezāri state was sealed. Alamut and many other fortresses were demolished. In the spring of 655/1257, Ḵoršāh himself was killed by his Mongol guards in Mongolia, where he had gone to see the Great Khan. By then, the Mongols had massacred large numbers of Nezāris in their protective custody. Shortly afterwards, the Nezāri castles in Syria submitted to the Mamluks; Kahf was the last Nezāri outpost there to fall in 671/1273. However, the Syrian Nezāris were permitted to remain in their traditional abodes as loyal subjects of the Mamluks and their successors. Having lost their political prominence, the Nezāris henceforth lived secretly in numerous scattered communities.

POST-ALAMUT NEZĀRI ISMAʿILISM

In the wake of the Mongol debacle, the Persian Nezāri Ismaʿilis survived the downfall of their state and strongholds. Many migrated to Central Asia and Sind, where Ismaʿili communities already existed. Other isolated groups in Persia soon disintegrated or were assimilated into the religiously dominant communities of their locality. The centralized daʿwa organization and direct leadership of the Nezāri imams had also disappeared. Under these circumstances, Nezāri communities developed independently while resorting to the strict observance of taqiya and adopting different external guises. Many Nezāri groups in the Iranian world disguised themselves as Sunni Muslims. Meanwhile, a group of Nezāri dignitaries had managed to hide Rokn-al-Din Ḵoršāh’s minor son, Šams-al-Din Moḥammad, who had then succeeded to the Nezāri imamate. Subsequently, Šams-al-Din was taken to Azerbaijan, where he and his next few successors to the imamate lived secretly.

Šams-al-Din, who in certain legendary accounts has been confused with Mawlānā Jalāl-al-Din Rumi’s spiritual guide Šams-e Tabriz, died around 710/1310. An obscure dispute over his succession split the line of the Nezāri imams and their following into the Qāsem-šāhi and Moḥammad-šāhi (or Moʾmen-šāhi) branches (Ivanow, 1938, pp. 57-79; Daftary, 1990, pp. 446 ff., 451-52). The Moḥammad-šāhi imams, who initially had more followers in northern Persia and Central Asia, transferred their seat to India in the 10th/16th century and by the end of the 12th/18th century this line had become discontinued. The sole surviving Moḥammad-šāhi Nezāris, currently numbering about 15,000, are to be found in Syria where they are locally known as the Jaʿfariya (Daftary, 1990, pp. 532-34). The Qāsem-šāhi branch has persisted to the present time. The last four Qāsem-šāhi imams have enjoyed prominence under their hereditary title of Āqā Khan (also Āghā Khan and Aga Khan). It was also in the early post-Alamut times that Persian Nezāris, as part of their taqiya practices, disguised themselves under the cover of Sufism, without establishing formal affiliations with any of the Sufi ṭariqas. The practice soon gained wide currency among the Nezāris of Central Asia and Sind as well. The earliest manifestation of this phenomenon is found in the writings of the poet Ḥakim Saʿd al-Din Nezāri Qohestāni (d. 720/1320). He is the earliest known post-Alamut Nezāri author to use poetic expressions and Sufi idioms for concealing Ismaʿili ideas, a model adopted later by many Nezāri authors of Persia, Afghanistan and Central Asia.

In early post-Alamut times, a most obscure phase in Is-maʿili history, the Nezāris had some success in regrouping in Daylam, where they remained active throughout the Ilkhānid and Timurid periods. A certain Ḵodāvand Mo-ḥammad (d. 807/1404), a Moḥammad-šāhi imam, even occupied Alamut for a while, before he was dislodged by Sayyed ʿAli, the powerful Zaydi ruler of Daylamān. The Nezāris did not survive in the Caspian region after the 10th/16th century (Ẓahir al-Din Marʿaši, Tāriḵ-e Gilān va Daylamestān, ed. M. Sotuda, Tehran, 1347 Š./1968, pp. 52-68, 69-70, 76 ff., 81 ff., 89, 121, 123-30). Soltan Moḥammad b. Jahāngir (d. 998/1589) and his son Soltan Jahāngir (d. 1006/1597), belonging to Banu Eskandar rulers of Kojur, adhered to Nezāri Ismaʿilism and spread it in their dominions; they represent the last known references in the sources to Ismaʿilism in northern Persia (Šayḵ ʿAli Gilāni, Tāriḵ-e Māzandarān, ed. M. Sotuda, 1352 Š./1973, pp. 88-89, 100). Only a few isolated Nezāri groups survived a while longer in Daylam during the Safawid period when Alamut was used as a prison. In Badaḵšān and other parts of Central Asia, the Ismaʿilis evidently acknowledged the Nezāri imamate only during the late Alamut period as a result of the activities of dāʿis dispatched from Qohestān. These dāʿis founded local dynasties of pirs and mirs who ruled over Šoḡnān and other districts of Badaḵšān. Later, the Nezāris of Badaḵšān were severely persecuted by the region’s Timurid and Özbeg rulers.

By the middle of the 9th/15th century, Ismaʿili-Sufi relations had become well established in the Iranian world. Indeed, a type of coalescence had emerged between Persian Sufism and Nezāri Ismaʿilism, two independent esoteric traditions in Islam which shared close affinities and common doctrinal grounds. This explains why the Persian-speaking Nezāris have regarded several of the greatest mystic poets of Persia, such as Sanāʾi, ʿAṭṭār and Jalāl-al-Din Rumi, as their co-religionists (see, for instance, Fedāʾi Ḵorāsāni, pp. 113-16). The Nezāri Ismaʿilis of Persia, Afghanistan and Central Asia have continued to use verses of the mystical poets of the Iranian world in their religious ceremonies. The dissimulating Persian Ismaʿilis also adopted visible aspects of the Sufi way of life. Thus, the imams appeared to outsiders as Sufi masters or pirs, while their followers adopted the typically Sufi guise of disciples or morids (see F. Daftary, “Ismāʿīlī-Sufi Relations in Early Post-Alamūt and Safavid Persia,” in L. Lewisohn and D. Morgan, ed., The Heritage of Sufism, Oxford, 1999, III, pp. 275-89).

By the middle of the 9th/15th century, the Nezāri imams of the Qāsem-šāhi line emerged in the village of Anjedān (q.v.), in central Persia, in the guise of Sufi pirs, initiating the so-called Anjedān revival in Nezāri Ismaʿilism that lasted some two centuries. With Mostanṣer be’llāh II (d. 885/1480), who adopted the Sufi name of Šāh Qa-landar, the Qāsem-šāhi imams became definitely established in the locality where their tombs are still preserved. Taking advantage of the changing religio-political climate of Persia, including the spread of ʿAlid loyalism and Shiʿite tendencies through Sunni Sufi orders, the imams successfully began to reorganize and reinvigorate their daʿwa to win new converts and reassert their authority over various Nezāri communities. These communities, notably those in Afghanistan, Central Asia and India, had been led for long periods by independent hereditary dynasties of pirs. The imams now gradually replaced these powerful autonomous figures with their own loyal dāʿis who would also regularly deliver the religious dues to them.

The Anjedān period also witnessed a revival in the literary activities of the Nezāris, especially in Persia where authors such as Abu Esḥāq Qohestāni and Ḵayrḵvāh Harāti produced the earliest doctrinal works of the post-Alamut period. In the context of Nezāri-Sufi relations during the early Anjedān period, valuable details are preserved in the Pandiāt-e javānmardi, containing the religious admonitions of Imam Mostanṣer be’llāh II. In this book, the Nezāris are referred to with Sufi expressions such as ahl-e ḥaqiqat, or the “people of the truth,” while the imam is designated as pir or moršed. The imam’s admonitions start with the šariʿat-ṭariqat-ḥaqiqat categorization of the Sufis, describing ḥaqiqat as the bāṭen of šariʿat which would be attained by the believers (moʾmens) through following the spiritual path or ṭariqat. The Pandiāt (text pp. 2-3, 11, 13, 14, 34-36, 54-58, 65-68 and elsewhere) further explains, in line with the earlier Nezāri teachings of qiāma times, that ḥaqiqat consists of recognizing the spiritual reality of the imam of the time. The Nezāris now essentially retained the teachings of the Alamut period, especially as elaborated after the declaration of qiāma. The current imam retained his central importance in Nezāri doctrine, and the recognition of his true spiritual reality remained the prime concern of his followers (Abu Esḥāq Qohestāni, text pp. 19-20, 37-38, 53-54, 58, 67-68, tr., pp. 19-20, 37-38, 53-54, 58, 67-68; Ḵayrḵvāh, Kalām-e pir, text pp. 46, 72-73, 86, 95-96, 100, 114-16; idem, Taṣnifāt, pp. 18 ff.).

The advent of the Safavids and the proclamation of Twelver Shiʿism as the state religion in 907/1501, promised a more favorable atmosphere for the activities of the Nezāris and other Shiʿite communities in Persia. The Nezāris did, in fact, initially reduce the intensity of their taqiya practices. However, this new optimism was short-lived as the Safavids and their šariʿat-minded ʿolamāʾ soon persecuted all popular forms of Sufism and those Shiʿite movements which fell outside the confines of Twelver Shiʿism. The Nezāris, too, received their share of persecutions. Šāh Ṭāher Ḥosayni (d. ca. 956/1549), a learned religious scholar and the most famous imam of the Moḥammad-šāhi line, was persecuted in Shah Es-māʿil’s reign (907-30 /1501-24). However, Šāh Ṭāher, whose religious following and popularity had proved unacceptable to the Safavid ruler and his Etnāʿašari scholars, fled to India in 926/1520 and permanently settled in the Deccan where he rendered valuable services to the Neẓām-šāhs of Aḥmadnagar. It is interesting to note that from early on in India, Šāh Ṭāher advocated Twelver Shiʿism, which he had obviously adopted as a form of disguise. He achieved his greatest success in the Deccan when Borhān Neẓām-šāh proclaimed Twelver Shiʿism as the official religion of the state in 944/1537. Šāh Ṭāher’s successors as Moḥammad-šāhi imams continued to observe taqiya in India mainly in the form of Twelver Shiʿism (see Ferešta, Tāriḵ-e Ferešta, ed. J. Briggs, Bombay, 1832, II, pp. 213-31; ʿAli b. ʿAziz Ṭabāṭabā, Borhān-e maʾāter, Hyderabad, 1936, pp. 251-70, 274 ff., 281 ff., 291, 308, 324-26, 338-39, 448-50, 452-53, 584; Daftary, 1990, pp. 487-91).

Meanwhile, Shah Ṭahmāsp persecuted the Qāsem-šāhi Nezāris of Anjedān and had their thirty-sixth imam, Morād Mirzā, executed in 981/1574. By the time of Shah ʿAbbās I (995-1038/1587-1629), the Persian Nezāris had successfully adopted Twelver Shiʿism as a second form of disguise. Šāh Ṭāher may have been the first Nezāri imam to have conceived of this new form of dissimulation, which was now adopted by the Qāsem-šāhi Nezāri imams and their followers (see Daftary, 1990, pp. 471-74). By the end of the 11th/17th century, the Qāsem-šāhi daʿwa had gained the allegiance of the bulk of the Nezāris at the expense of the Moḥammad-šāhis. The daʿwa had been particularly successful in Afghanistan, Central Asia and several regions of the Indian subcontinent. In South Asia, the Hindu converts became known as Khoja, derived from the Persian word ḵᵛāja (Nanji, 1978, pp. 50-83). The Nezāri Khojas developed an indigenous religious tradition, known as Satpanth or the “true path” (to salvation), as well as a devotional literature known as the gināns (q.v.). With the fortieth Qāsem-šāhi imam, Šāh Nezār (d. 1134/1722), the seat of this branch of the Nezāri daʿwa, then representing the only branch in Persia, was transferred from Anjedān to the nearby village of Kahak, near Qom and Maḥallāt, ending the Anjedān period in post-Alamut Nezāri Ismaʿilism.

By the middle of the 12th/18th century, in the unsettled conditions of Persia after the demise of the Safavids and the Afghan invasion, the Nezāri imams moved to Šahr-e Bābak in Kermān, a location closer to the pilgrimage route of the Khojas who regularly traveled from India to see their imam and deliver their religious dues. Soon, the imams acquired political prominence in the affairs of Kermān. The forty-fourth imam, Abu’l-Ḥasan, also known as Sayyed Abu’l-Ḥasan Kahaki, was appointed around 1170/1756 to the governorship of the Kermān province by Karim Khan Zand; earlier he had been the beglerbegi or governor of the city of Kermān (Vaziri, pp. 543-65). It was in his time that the Neʿmat-Allāhi Sufi order was revived in Persia. Imam Abu’l-Ḥasan had close relations with Nur-ʿAli-šāh and Moštāq-ʿAli-šāh among other Neʿmat-Allāhi Sufis in Kermān (Daftary, 1990, pp. 498-503). After Abu’l-Ḥasan’s death in 1206/1792, his son Šāh-Ḵalil-Allāh succeeded to the Nezāri imamate and eventually settled in Yazd. In 1232/1817, he was murdered in a mob attack on his house. Šāh-Ḵalil-Allāh was succeeded by his eldest son Ḥasan-ʿAli-šāh who was appointed to the governorship of Qom by Fath-ʿAli-Šāh and also given properties in Maḥallāt. In addition, the Qājār monarch gave one of his daughters in marriage to the young imam and bestowed upon him the honorific title of Āqā Khan (q.v.), meaning lord and master—this title has remained hereditary among Ḥasan-ʿAli-šāh’s successors.

Ḥasan-ʿAli-šāh was appointed to the governorship of Kermān in 1251/1835 by Moḥammad Shah Qājār. Subsequently, after some prolonged confrontations between the imam and the Qājār establishment, Āqā Khan I, also known as Āqā Khan Maḥallāti, left Persia in 1257/1841. After spending some years in Afghanistan, Sind, Gojarāt and Calcutta, he settled permanently in Bombay in 1265/1848, marking the advent of the modern period of Nezāri Ismaʿilism. As the spiritual head of a Muslim community, Āqā Khan I received the protection of the British in India. The Nezāri imam now engaged in a widespread campaign for defining and delineating the distinct religious identity of his Khoja following. The Nezāri Khojas, too, had dissimulated for long periods as Sunnis and Twelver Shiʿites while their religious traditions had been influenced by Hindu elements. With the help of the courts in India, Āqā Khan I’s followers were legally defined as Šiʿa Imami Ismaʿilis (see Ḥasan-ʿAli-šāh, Āqā Khan, ʿEbrat-afzā, Bombay, 1278/1862, pp. 8-49; Vaziri, pp. 60-64, 608-13; Algar, pp. 61-81; Daftary, 1990, pp. 504-13).

Āqā Khan I died in 1298/1881 and was succeeded by his son Āqā ʿAli Šāh, who led the Nezāris for only four years (1298-1302 /1881-85). The latter’s sole surviving son and successor, Solṭān Moḥammad Šāh, Āqā Khan III, led the Nezāris for seventy-two years, and also became well known as a Muslim reformer and statesman. Āqā Khan III, too, made systematic efforts to set his followers’ identity apart from other religious communities. The Nezāri identity was spelled out in numerous constitutions that the imam promulgated for his followers in different regions, especially in India, Pakistan and East Africa. Furthermore, the Nezāri imam became increasingly concerned with reform policies that would benefit not only his followers but other Muslims as well. He worked vigorously for consolidating and reorganizing the Nezāris into a modern Muslim community with high standards of both male and female education, health and social well-being, as well as developing a new network of councils for administering the affairs of his community. The participation of women in communal affairs also received a high priority in the imam’s reforms.

Āqā Khan III died in 1376/1957 and was succeeded by his grandson, Mawlānā Ḥāżer Imam Šāh Karim Ḥosayni, as he is addressed by his followers. The present imam of the Nezāris, the forty-ninth in the series, has continued and substantially expanded the modernization policies of his predecessor, also developing numerous new programs and institutions of his own which are of wider interest to the Muslims and the Third World countries (Daftary, 1990, pp. 518-32, 537-48). He has created a complex institutional network generally referred to as the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN), which implements projects in a variety of social, economic and cultural areas. Prince Karim Aga Khan IV, as he is known internationally, has his secretariat near Paris. Numbering several millions, the Nezāri Ismaʿilis are scattered as Muslim minorities in more than twenty-five countries of Asia, Middle East, Africa, Europe and North America.

ISMAʿILISM iv. QARĀMEṬA

See CARMATIANS.

ISMAʿILISM v. ISMAʿILI DAʿWA AND THE FATIMID DYNASTY

See FATIMIDS.

ISMAʿILISM vi. ISMAʿILI IDEAS OF TIME

See DAWR (2).

ISMAʿILISM vii. ISMAʿILI IDEAS OF COSMOGONY AND COSMOLOGY

See COSMOGONY AND COSMOLOGY vi.

ISMAʿILISM viii. FREE WILL IN ISMAʿILISM

See FREE WILL ii.

ISMAʿILISM ix. ISMAʿILI MISSIONARIES

See DĀʿI.

ISMAʿILISM x. ISMAʿILI MYTHS AND LEGENDS

See FEDĀʾI.

ISMAʿILISM xi. ISMAʿILI JURISPRUDENCE

A distinct Ismaʿili system of jurisprudence was founded after the establishment of the Fatimid dynasty in North Africa. The pre-Fatimid Ismaʿilis, as a secret revolutionary organization, were preoccupied in various parts of the ʿAbbasid empire with missionary activities, promising the advent of the expected messianic figure called Mahdi and Qāʾem who would restore justice and equity. Toward this goal, they developed a highly sophisticated gnostic system of thought, wherein the bāṭeni (esoteric) sciences were more emphasized than the ẓāheri (exoteric) sciences (see BĀṬENIYA). Law not only belonged to the latter category. but also had very little practical use as long as the Ismaʿilis had not obtained political power. Hence, it was not a priority at that stage. This, however, does not mean that they completely neglected law. The early Is-maʿilis shared a common heritage with other Shiʿites, especially the Imamis up to the death of the Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq in 148/765. Thus, they shared with the Zaydis as well as the Imamis certain rituals and practices that had evolved until then. Recent scholarship has demonstrated that Imam Moḥammad al-Bāqer (q.v.) played a major role in the shaping of Shiʿite jurisprudence (Lalani, pp. 114-26), which became crystallized during the time of his son Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq and was known as maḏhab Ahl al-Bayt (rite of jurisprudence from the family of the Prophet; see AHL-E BAYT). It should be also noted that both the Ismaʿilis and the Imamis consider Imam Mo-ḥammad al-Bāqer and his son Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq as the founders of their respective systems of law, because most of the traditions in Qāżi Noʿmān’s Daʿāʾem al-Eslām and Abu Jaʿfar Moḥammad Kolayni’s Ketāb al-kāfi are traced back to these Imams. This school of jurisprudence was not in favor of raʾy (personal opinion) or qiās (analogical deduction), both of which prevailed in the contemporary circles of the Sunni jurisconsults (faqih). The Ismaʿilis share certain ritualistic features with other Shiʿites, such as the wiping of the feet in ablution, saying basmala (i.e., the formula beʾsm Allāh al-raḥmān al-raḥim) aloud in recitation of the Qurʾan and during obligatory prayers, and addition of the formula ḥayya ʿalā ḵayr al-ʿamal (come to the best of work) in the call to prayer (aḏān; Lalani, pp. 120-24).

Soon after his triumphant entry into Qayrawān in 296/909, Abu ʿAbd Allāh Šiʿi, the founder of the Fatimid dynasty, appointed Moḥammad b. ʿOmar Marvazi, a local Shiʿite figure, as judge (qāżi). Marvazi imposed strict adherence to the above Shiʿite rituals and legal practices. Moreover, he ordered the omission of al-ṣalāt kayr men al-nawm (prayer is better than sleep) from the morning call to prayer and prohibited the tarāwiḥ prayers led by an imam during the month of Ramażān. In the Friday sermon (ḵoṭba) he added the blessings (ṣalāt) on Imam ʿAli, Fāṭema, Imam Ḥasan, and Imam Ḥosayn immediately after the blessings on the Prophet. He also issued an order forbidding jurists to give legal opinions except according to the Shiʿite maḏhab (school); declared ṭalāq al-batta (irrevocable divorce) invalid, and upheld the right of a daughter to inherit the whole of her father’s estate, to the exclusion of ʿaṣāba (agnates), in the absence of a son (Ebn al-Hayṯam, pp. 64-67; Māleki, II, pp. 41, 55-56, 60-62; Ebn ʿEzāri, I, pp. 151, 159, 173).

Unfortunately, we have no information about legal compositions of Marvazi or his immediate successors in the office of qażāʾ Efriqiya. One can only surmise that some of those judges might have written law manuals hoping that their works would be recognized officially. Even if they did, their works were overshadowed by that those of Qāżi Noʿmān and soon fell into disuse and were lost.

Qāżi Noʿmān, an Ismaʿili Shiʿite from Qayrawān, entered the service of the Fatimid dynasty at an early age and served the first four caliphs consecutively for over half a century, from 312/924 until his death in 363/974, in various capacities. He was commissioned by the fourth caliph al-Moʿezz le-Din-Allāh (r. 341-65/953-75) to compose the Daʿāʾem al-Eslām, his magnum opus, which was officially promulgated as the Fatimid code. He is, therefore, rightly regarded by the Ismaʿilis as the one who propounded their law. Qāżi Noʿmān had also composed several legal works based on the maḏhab of the Ahl al-Bayt. In his first and voluminous Ketāb al-iżāḥ, which has reached us in abridged versions, his efforts were directed to the collection and classification of a vast number of legal traditions transmitted from the family of the Prophet. He compiled this work from all the available sources. This early and massive work consisting of 3,000 folios could be seen as an attempt by Qāżi Noʿmān to lay the foundation on which Ismaʿili law could then be built. Consequently, he made several abridgments of the Ketāb al-iżāḥ, namely Ketāb al-aḵbār (or al-eḵbār), Moḵtaṣar al-iżāḥ, al-Orjuza al-montaḵaba, Ketāb al-eqteṣār, and Ketāb al-eḵteṣār (or Moḵtaṣar al-āṯār, or Eḵteṣār al-āṯār). In addition to those legal texts he also wrote refutations of the Sunni schools of jurisprudence and their founders, such as Mālek b. Anas, Abu Ḥanifa, and Šāfeʿi (for the chronology of these works and the development of Noʿmān’s thought, see Poonawala, 1996, pp. 119-24). In his Eḵtelāf oṣul al-maḏāheb (p. 22), Qāżi Noʿmān cites the decree of al-Moʿezz le-Din-Allāh, wherein he is instructed by the latter about the roots of jurisprudence. It states that, in issuing his legal decisions, Qāżi Noʿmān should first follow the Qurʾān, next, the tradition (sonna) of the Prophet, and for what is not found in either of them he should turn to the maḏhab of the Imams from the family of the Prophet. If something still remains doubtful and difficult to resolve, he should refer the matter to the Imam. In his Ketāb al-eqteṣār (p. 167) and Ketāb al-eḵteṣār, Qāżi Noʿmān proposes the same principles for issuing legal decisions and rejects raʾy and qiās.

The Daʿāʾem, according to ʿEmād-al-Din Edris (d. 872/1468), a Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi dāʿi and a historian, was closely supervised by the Caliph-Imam al-Moʿezz himself (Edris, p. 44). The work follows the general pattern of law manuals and is divided into two volumes. The first deals with the acts of devotion and religious observances (ʿebādāt) while the second with laws pertaining to human intercourse (moʿāmalāt). Qāżi Noʿmān states on the authority of Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq that Islam was founded on seven pillars, that is, walāya (devotion to the imam), ṭahāra (ritual purity), ṣalāt (prayers), zakāt (welfare tax), ṣawm (fasting in the month of Ramażān), ḥajj (pilgrimage to Mecca), and jehād (holy war). Walāya, the corner-stone of Ismaʿili faith, embodies the doctrine of the imamate that lies at the basis of Shiʿism, and Qāżi Noʿmān transformed it into a dynamic principle after the establishment of the Fatimid caliphate. It is considered the highest and the noblest of the seven pillars, without which no human acts of devotion and worship are acceptable to God. It should be noted that, unlike with the Is-maʿilis, walāya did not become part of the Imami legal works. The Daʿāʾem was therefore the first juristic text to give walāya a legal status in Islamic law. For the Is-maʿilis and the newly founded Fatimid dynasty, it was not merely a religious belief but was the very basis of their claim to the political leadership of the Muslim community. In the chapter on jehād, Qāżi Noʿmān included the ʿahd (a command document) ascribed to Imam ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb (Daʿāʾem, tr., I, pp. 436-56), which deals with the ruler’s conduct with his subjects. This document, according to Wadād al-Qāżi (p. 104), represents the Is-maʿili theory of the state. Ṭahāra, which implies physical and spiritual purification and is a necessary requirement for the valid performance of prayers, was raised by Qāżi Noʿmān to the status of an independent pillar (deʿāma, pl. daʿāʾem).

The Daʿāʾem, as a law manual, addresses matters of substantive law, hence, Qāżi Noʿmān restricted the authorities to Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq and his predecessors. In this work he does not deal with the day-to-day running of the state, where the ultimate authority was the ruling imam. The sources of law, according to Qāżi Noʿmān, are the Qurʾān, the tradition (sonna) of the Prophet, and the teachings or rulings of the Imams. The major differences with Imami (Twelver Shiʿites) law are that Qāżi Noʿmān admitted the prohibition of temporary marriage (motʿa), and the introduction of a fixed calendar rather than sighting the new moon for the beginning and end of Ramażān (Daʿāʾem, tr., I, p. 339, II, p. 214). The Daʿāʾem is considered by the Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi Ismaʿilis as the greatest authority on their law and has remained until today a source of supreme authority in legal matters.

Ebn Kelles (d. 380/991), vizier of the caliph al-ʿAziz, is credited to have composed a legal work based on the pronouncements of al-Moʿezz and al-ʿAziz (r. 365-86/975-96), but the work did not survive. After Qāżi Noʿmān, there was no significant development in Ismaʿili law either during the remainder of the Fatimid rule in Egypt or in Yemen, where the Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi community survived for the next four centuries after the fall of the Fatimids in Egypt (567/1171) and the Ṣulayhids in Yemen (532/1138). It was in India that the works of Qāżi Noʿmān were glossed. Aminji b. Jalāl (d. 1010/1602), an eminent jurist, deserves special mention in this respect. His Ketāb al-soʾāl wa’l-jawāb (Majduʿ, pp. 37-38) is an interesting collection of legal questions and their answers. Another noteworthy work is the anonymous Ketāb al-soʾāl wa’l-jawāb le-mašāʾeḵ al-Hend maʿ al-ḥawāši men kotob al-Qāżi al-Noʿmān (Majduʿ, p. 37), which consists of questions put to the contemporary dāʿis and other daʿwa dignitaries and the answers given by them. In addition, it contains extensive excerpts from the works of Qāżi Noʿmān that have not survived, especially Ketāb al-iżāḥ and Moḵtaṣar al-iżāḥ. Another anonymous work worth mentioning is Taqwim (or Taqāwim) al-aḥkām (Majduʿ, pp. 36-37), wherein various topics in law concerning what is permitted and what is forbidden are arranged in a novel way. All the latter three works reiterate that raʾy and qiās are not permitted. Hence, they give answers to the questions posed in the form of a ruling, however, without going into the details of methodology as to how the authorities arrived at those answers.

One can thus conclude that Ismaʿili jurisprudence began with Qāżi Noʿmān and ended with him. Before him, there was no distinct Ismaʿili jurisprudence, and after him there was no significant development except glosses, repetition, and restatement.

ISMAʿILISM xii. ISMAʿILI HADITH

See HADITH iii.

ISMAʿILISM xiii. ISMAʿILI LITERATURE IN PERSIAN AND ARABIC

Ismaʿili literature (“literature” is used here in its wider sense to include all the written products of scholarly disciplines delineated by learning, religion, and science) refers to the literary production of more than a millennium, from the middle of the 3rd/9th century (i.e., before the advent of the Fatimids in 909 in North Africa) to recent times. It deals with the writings of Ismaʿili missionaries (doʿāt, pl. of dāʿi) and religious dignitaries, either sponsored by the daʿwa (religio-political organization), or the Fatimid regime, or composed independently. Geographically, it covers wide regions stretching from North Africa to India, wherever Ismaʿili missions operated actively and were able to maintain a foothold through local converts and their support. The Fatimids (297-567/909-1171) were great patrons of learning and their newly founded capital, Cairo (al-Qāhera, i.e., the victorious), soon became a rival of older centers like Baghdad as a seat of learning and intellectual activity. Ismaʿili literature produced during the pre-Fatimid and Fatimid periods, often referred to as the classical period, with the exception of Nāṣer(-e) Ḵosrow’s works, is almost exclusively in Arabic.

After the fall of the Fatimids in Egypt, the Ismaʿilis of Yemen, known as the Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi daʿwa, continued this tradition of producing Ismaʿili works in Arabic. It should be noted that from the very beginning of the Is-maʿili religio-political movement, Yemen had become an Ismaʿili stronghold. Although the first Ismaʿili state founded there by Ebn Ḥawšab (q.v.), generally known as Manṣur al-Yaman, disintegrated through inner dissentions at the beginning of the 10th century, and hence before the advent of the Fatimids in North Africa, the religious component of the mission survived and achieved new success under ʿAli b. Moḥammad Ṣolayḥi, who founded the Sulayhid dynasty in 439/1047. The Sulayhids, adherents of Ismaʿili faith and nominal vassals of the Fatimids of Egypt, ruled Yemen until 1138, first from their capital Ṣanʿāʾ, in the north, and then from Ḏi Jebla, in the south. With the waning of their power, the Ismaʿili Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi community not only survived, but their stronghold in Ḥaraz became the headquarters of the daʿwa for the next four centuries. It was this Yemeni community that preserved a great portion of the classical Ismaʿili heritage and writing by copying and studying those works; as well as augmenting and enriching this literature through their own original contributions in various disciplines of learning. In 1567, following the death of the first Indian dāʿi, Yusof b. Solaymān, in Ṭayba in Yemen, the headquarters of the Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi daʿwa was moved to Gujarat, on the west coast of India. In the wake of this move most of the Ismaʿili literature, preserved from the classical period and produced later in Yemen, was also transferred to India. The Bohras, Indian converts to Mostaʿali-Ṭayyebi daʿwa, continued the Arabic tradition by diligently copying and studying those earlier works, and at times commenting on them. Al-Jāmeʿa al-Sayfiya, a well-known seminary for the Dāʾudi Bohras, established by the dāʿi ʿAbd-e ʿAli Sayf-al-Din in 1814 for the religious education of the community, has continued the Arabic tradition to the present day. Beside preserving a major portion of Ismaʿili literature produced in North Africa, Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere, the learned Bohra shaiks have put their own stamp on whatever they have added. The Arabic tradition also prevailed in the Nezāri Ismaʿili communities of Syria. They had succeeded in acquiring fortresses in the mountains of central Syria where they ruled from about 1100 to 1273, the year when their power was terminated by the Mamluk ruler of Egypt and Syria, Malek Ẓāher Baybars. Though the Syrian Nezāri community survived the adversity, they only succeed in preserving a very minute portion of the Fatimid heritage.

The Persian tradition in Ismaʿili literature, started by Nāṣer(-e) Ḵosrow, on the other hand, was continued exclusively by the reformed Ismaʿilism of Alamut, that is, the Persian Nezāris. The Nezāri branch originated from internal dissension among the Ismaʿilis over the issue of succession to the caliph-Imam Monstanṣer in 1094. Ḥasan(-e) Ṣabbāḥ (q.v.), an Ismaʿili dāʿi who had succeeded in gaining control of the strong mountain fortress of Alamut in Rudbār, in 1090, later broke off his relations with the Fatimids of Egypt in support of the claims of Nezār b. al-Mostanṣer. Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ expounded in Persian his new doctrine of taʿlim, that in religious faith one has to accept absolute authority of the teacher, that is, the Imam. Persian continued to be the language of the Nezāri state founded by Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ until its destruction by the advancing Mongols in 1256. The Persian Nezāris used Persian in their religious writings. They not only abandoned Arabic but also did not show much interest in the preservation of the earlier heritage that was in Arabic. The Persian tradition continued among the Nezāri communities that survived the Mongol onslaught in various parts of Persian speaking regions. Considerations of space do not allow a detailed description of Ismaʿili literature, hence only the most prominent aspects will be highlighted and only their most outstanding representatives will be enumerated here.

In Arabic. In their classification of various “sciences” or fields of learning, Muslim writers generally make a distinction between the “religious sciences” (al-ʿolum al-šarʿiya also called al-ʿolum al-naqliya, “traditional sciences”) and the “foreign sciences” (ʿolum al-ʿajam min al-Yunāniyin wa-ḡayrehem men al-omam, also called al-ʿolum al-ʿaqliya). The former includes Qurʾānic exegesis (tafsir), tradition (Hadith), theology (ʿelm-e kalām), jurisprudence (feqh), and other sciences, such as Arabic grammar, philology, rhetoric, and historiography that developed from them. The latter, that is, the so-called “foreign sciences,” include mathematics, natural sciences, medicine, astronomy, philosophy, etc. The Ismaʿilis, on the other hand, draw a fundamental distinction between the ẓāher and the bāṭen, the two aspects of religion. The ẓāher consists of exterior expressions of religion as laid down in the law (šariʿa) and explains the literal meaning of the Qurʾān. The ẓāher changes with each prophet in accordance with time and circumstances, whereas the bāṭen, comprised of the inner, true meaning of the Qurʾān and the šariʿa, remains unchanged. The prophet receives the revelation (tanzil), transmits it to the people and lays down the šariʿa, while it is the Imam who expounds the inner, esoteric meaning of the Qurʾān and the šariʿa through taʾwil (hermeneutics). The principle of hermeneutics developed by a number of outstanding dāʿis, such as Jaʿfar b. Ebn al-Ḥawšab, Qāżi Noʿmān b. Moḥammad, and Abu Yaʿqub Sejestāni, became the major method of Ismaʿili doctrine, so much so that it has come to be regarded as typical and characteristic of Ismaʿili thought. It was for this reason that the Ismaʿilis were often called bāṭeniya. Taʾwil begins as a method of verbal interpretation and consists in going from the surface level (ẓāher, exterior) of a given linguistic term or expression to the depth (bāṭen, interior) of its meaning. Ismaʿili taʾwil is not, therefore, a simple matter of verbal interpretation, rather it has an important ontological significance. For in Ismaʿili doctrine, whatever exists in the physical world conceals in its ontological depths an inner reality. Thus, the Is-maʿilis classify sciences into two major categories: ẓāheri sciences, and bāṭeni sciences. The former comprises of Arabic language and grammar, poetry, history, jurisprudence, and related disciplines; while the latter comprises of taʾwil and ḥaqāʾeq (lit. truth, reality). The highest level of knowledge is, therefore, called ḥaqāʾeq or ʿelm al-ḥaqāʾeq (the knowledge of the truth) which represents the ultimate cosmological and eschatological system of the Ismaʿili doctrine. Despite this twofold division of sciences and religion, they emphasize that both are complimentary to each other, and one cannot exist without the other. Ismaʿili literature is therefore overwhelmingly religious in character. In other words, it is heavily tinged with their particular ideology.

The earliest extant writings, such as the Ketāb al-kašf (The book of revelation), Ketāb al-rošd wa’l-hedāya (The book of proper conduct and guidance), and Ketāb al-ʿālem wa’l-ḡolām (The book of the master and the disciple), ascribed either to Ebn al-Ḥawšab or his son Jaʿfar, give us insights into the theory of the imamate, the practices of the mission, the technique used for the esoteric interpretation, and a partial picture of the entire framework of their doctrines. Another important work from the early period that occupies a unique position in the history of Islamic thought and exercised a great influence on the Muslim elite is Rasāʾel eḵwān al-ṣafāʾ wa-ḵollān al-wafāʾ (the epistles of the brethren of purity). Eḵwān al-ṣafāʾ (q.v.) was a pseudonym assumed by the authors of this well-known encyclopedia who described themselves as a group of fellow-seekers after truth. They deliberately concealed their Ismaʿili identity so that their treatises could gain wider currency and appeal to a broader cross-section of the society. The philosophical system of the Rasāʾel is a synthesis of reason (ʿaql) and revelation (waḥy), wherein the cosmos is viewed as a unified whole. The philosophical structure and the cosmology are derived from Neoplatonic and Neo-Pythagorean sources. The Rasāʾel offered a new political order headed by an ʿAlid Imam. Their utopia, referred to as al-madina al-fāżela al-ruḥāniya (the spiritual, virtuous city) or dawlat ahl al-ḵayr (the governance of virtuous people), was to be governed by a lawgiving philosopher-prophet or his spiritual successor. The organization and arrangement of the Rasāʾel and their classification of the sciences, although somewhat different from the twofold division into the ẓāheri and the bāṭeni, reflect their ultimate objective.

Conspicuously absent from Ismaʿili literature are the two important branches of Islamic sciences, Hadith and tafsir, classified as branches of the ẓāheri sciences. The reason for their absence could be explained by the fact that, after the establishment of the Fatimid dynasty, the imamate as conceived by Ismaʿili doctrine, unlike what happened in the case of the Imāmis (i.e., the Twelver Shiʿites), became a living institution. It implied that as long as the Imam (i.e., the Fatimid caliph-imam), who represented the living sonna of the Prophet was accessible, there was no need for the compilation of Hadith and tafsir. The traditions needed for clarification of the šariʿa and handed down by the Imams, were collected by Qāżi Noʿmān in his Daʿāʾem al-eslām, hence there was no further need for them. As for the external philological meaning of the Qurʾān, any tafsir could be used. Its inner true meaning, however, could be obtained only through the taʾwil derived from the rightful Imam. For this reason, the Imam, the repository of true knowledge and the authoritative interpreter of the Qurʾān, is often called “the speaking Qurʾān” (Qorʾān-e nāṭeq), while the Qurʾān, since it needs an interpreter, is called “the silent Qurʾān” (Qorʾān-e ṣāmet). There are numerous works on taʾwil that deal with specific verses or chapters of the Qurʾān. Qāżi Noʿmān’s Asās al-taʾwil (the foundation of taʾwil), Taʾwil al-daʿāʾem (Taʾwil of the pillars), and Taʾwil al-šariʿa (Taʾwil of the canon law of Islam) and Jaʿfar b. Manṣur al-Yaman’s Sarāʾer al-noṭaqāʾ or Asrār al-noṭaqāʾ (Secrets of the noṭaqāʾ, i.e., the major prophets), Ketāb al-farāʾeż wa ḥodud al-din (the book of religious duties and the hierarchy of the daʿwa), Ketāb al-reżāʿ fi’l-bāṭen (the book of the inner meaning of foster relationship), Ketāb taʾwil al-zakāt (the book of the esoteric interpretation of the alms tax), and Taʾwil surat al-nesāʾ (the esoteric interpretation of the Qurʾānic chapter on women) are noteworthy works of taʾwil from the early period. Sejestāni’s Ketāb al-efteḵār (The book of glory) is the best example of the whole range of taʾwil applied to the basic beliefs of Islam and its šariʿa; as well as being a compendium of Ismaʿili doctrine. Mezāj al-tasnim (medley of a fountain in Paradise) by Żiāʾ-al-Din Esmāʿil b. Hebat-Allāh, a partial tafsir from Surat al-tawba, verse 94, to Surat al-ʿankabut, verse 44, was compiled during the second half of the 18th century in Yemen.

Ismaʿili literature of pre-Fatimid and Fatimid periods reflects the general concern of Muslims and of Islamic theology, which was being developed and debated among scholars of various schools of thought, such as the Muʿtazilite, Ashʿarite, and the Imāmi theologians (motakallemun). The major Ismaʿili contribution to Islamic thought is their formulation of a new synthesis of reason and revelation based on Neoplatonic cosmology and Shiʿite doctrine. Thus, they offered a new world order under the Imam who resembles Plato’s philosopher-king. The classic formulation of this synthesis, as indicated above, is found in the Rasāel Eḵwān-al-Ṣafā (Epistles of the Brethren of Purity).

The philosophical trend was the most dominant in the Iranian school of the Ismaʿili daʿwa and it has contributed the lion’s share to this discipline. The elaboration of theoretical and doctrinal discourse among major dāʿis varied to a certain extent in keeping with their social and intellectual environment as well as their textual sources. The spirit of intellectual inquiry fostered by the daʿwa allowed some degree of freedom. In his Ketāb al-eṣlāḥ (The book of correction; lost), Abu Ḥātem Aḥmad Rāzi (q.v.) wrote a correction of Abu’l-Ḥasan Moḥammad b. Aḥmad Nasafi’s views expounded in his Ketāb al-maḥṣul (The book of the harvest). Rāzi disagreed with the latter concerning several issues, such as the precedence of qażāʾ (fate, predestination) over qadar (freedom of will), the imperfect nature of emanation (fayż) of the Soul (nafs) from the Intellect (ʿaql), and the dissociation of šariʿa from the first nāṭeq, that is, Ādam. In his Ketāb al-noṣra (The book of support; lost), Abu Yaʿqub Esḥāq Sejestāni (q.v.) disagreed with Rāzi’s corrections and upheld Nasafi’s opinions. In his Ketāb al-riāż (The book of the meadow), Ḥamid-al-Din Aḥmad Kermāni tried to harmonize the acrimonious debate that had raged within the daʿwa. He criticized the previous views and offered his own solutions. In his magnum opus, Rāḥat al-ʿaql, Kermāni modified the earlier Neoplatonic cosmology he had inherited by introducing the Ten Intelligences and their astronomical counterparts that had been current in philosophic circles since Abu Naṣr Fārābi (q.v.). In accordance with this system Kermāni revised the structure of the spheres, the hierarchies of the physical world and of the daʿwa, known as ḥodud-al-din. The refined cosmology of Kermāni was adopted with some modifications by the Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebis of Yemen. Again, considerations of space prevent one from elaborating on this except for citing some important works on ḥaqāʾeq during the Yemeni period: Kanz al-walad (The treasure of the offspring) by Ebrāhim Ḥāmedi, al-Anwār al-laṭifa (Delicate lights) by Moḥammad b. Ṭāher Ḥāreṯi, Ketāb al-ḏaḵira (The book of the treasure) by ʿAli b. Moḥammad b. Walid, and Zahr al-maʿāni (The blossoming of [spiritual] concepts) by ʿEmād-al-Din Edris. Numerous small treatises entitled al-mabdaʾ wa’l-maʿād or al-ebtedāʾ wa’l-entahāʾ (the beginning and the end) compiled during the Yemeni period attempt to summarize the ḥaqāʾeq system very much like the account of the soul’s initial downfall and its subsequent ascent through “knowledge.”

The Ismaʿilis view history as a progressive cycle, which advances through seven major cycles, each inaugurated by a nāṭeq (speaking prophet; pl. noṭaqāʾ) or ulu’l-ʿazm (endowed with resolution) who brings revelation and promulgates law in its external form. Ādam, (Adam), Nuḥ (Noah), Ebrāhim (Abraham), Musā (Moses), ʿIsā (Jesus), and Moḥammad were the six noṭaqāʾ. Each succeeding nāṭeq abrogates the law of his predecessor and brings a new law. Nāṭeq is followed by asās (foundation), or ṣāmet (one who remains silent) who promulgates the bāṭen through taʾwil. Šiṯ (Seth), Sām (Shem), Esmāʿil (Ishmael) or Esḥāq (Isaac), Hārun (Aaron), Yušaʿ (Joshua) the son of Nun, Šamʿun al-Ṣafāʾ (Simon Peter), and ʿAli were the six osos of the aforementioned six noṭaqāʾ. The asās, in turn, is followed by series of seven imams; the last rises in rank and becomes the nāṭeq of the following era. Thus, each major cycle contains seven minor cycles. The length of each cycle varies. Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil b. Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq, considered by some groups of Ismaʿilis as the seventh nāṭeq would abrogate the ẓāheri šariʿa of Mo-ḥammad and promulgate the bāṭen. This doctrine, however, has undergone many modifications in the course of Ismaʿili history. During the Fatimid period, ẓāher and bāṭen together were considered two complimentary aspects of religion and both were emphasized. However, dormant antinomian tendencies have resurfaced from time to time throughout Ismaʿili history.

Given this view of history one finds very few historical works in Ismaʿili literature. Qāżi Noʿmān was an early exception to this rule; and although he composed several historical works, only the following have survived: Eftetāḥ al-daʿwa wa-ebtedāʾ al-dawla (Commencement of the daʿwa and the establishment of the [Fatimid] state; Dachraoui has analyzed and summarized it in his edition in French) deals with the beginning of the Ismaʿili mission in Yemen and North Africa, leading to the establishment of the Fatimid dynasty. Noʿmān’s account is based on contemporary sources that have not survived. It is, therefore, a primary source for that period and has been exploited extensively by modern historians. Šarḥ al-aḵbār (The elucidation of the traditions), in three volumes, is a detailed account of the outstanding traits of ʿAli b. abi Ṭāleb and early Imams up to Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq, based on the traditions of the Prophet. It is followed by a brief account of the advent of the Fatimid Mahdi and the traditions concerning this event. Ketāb al-manāqeb wa’l-maṯāleb (the book of virtues and defects) treats the history of the two powerful clans, Banu Hāšem and Banu Omayya, from pre-Islamic times up to the reign of the Fatimid Caliph-Imam al-Moʿezz. As the title indicates, Noʿmān exposes immoral traits and vices of the Banu Omayya by juxtaposing them with the piety and learning of the Imams from the House of Banu Hāšem. Ketāb al-majāles wa’l-mosāyarāt is a collection of Noʿmān’s intimate conversations with al-Moʿezz during their strolls together as well as through the correspondence between them.

Ismaʿili literature of the Fatimid period contained at least half a dozen autobiographies and biographies. Unfortunately, two important ones, Sirat Ebn Ḥawšab, and al-Sira al-Kotāmiya, used by Qāżi Noʿmān for his Eftetāḥ al-daʿwa, have not survived. Sirat al-Ḥājeb Jaʿfar (tr. into English and French), written by a scribe during the reign of ʿAziz, describes the journey of the Fatimid Mahdi from his hiding place in Salamiya, Syria, to Sejelmāsa and his subsequent arrival at Raqqāda. Sirat al-Ostāḏ Jawḏar (tr. into French) was written by a scribe who served Ostād Jawḏar, the chamberlain of Moʿezz. Sirat al-Moʾayyad is an autobiography of the famous dāʿi Abu Naṣr Moʾayyad fi’l-Din of Shiraz during the reign of the Caliph-Imam Mostanṣer, who played a leading role as an intermediary between the Turkish military leader Abu’l-Ḥāreṯ Arsalān Basāsiri and the Fatimid government in the campaign against the Saljuqs after the fall of the Buyids in Baghdad.

ʿEmād-al-Din Edris was another noted historian of the daʿwa during the Yemeni period. His ʿOyun al-aḵbār (The fountainheads of history), in seven volumes, narrates the history of the Prophet and the Ismaʿili Imams until the occultation of the twenty-first Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi Imam, son of the Fatimid caliph-Imam Āmer, following the latter’s assassination in around 524/1130. Some of the sources used by Edris have not survived. The first three volumes still remain unedited. Although volumes four, five, and six have been edited, they cannot be regarded as definitive editions. The seventh volume, which also contains the history of the Sulayhid dynasty in Yemen, is available in a critical edition with an English summary. Nozhat al-afkār wa-rawżat al-aḵbār (The promenade of reflection and the meadow of history), in two volumes, is a political history of Yemen after the collapse of the Sulayhid dynasty up to the year 853/1449. It is considered a most important primary source for the three-hundred-year history of the Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi community in Yemen. In his third work, entitled Rawżat al-aḵbār wa nozhat al-asmār (The meadow of history and the promenade of stories), Edris continued the history of Yemen where he had left off in the Nozhat al-afkār up to the year 870/1465. During the Indian period, the following works should be noted for the beginning and the early history of the Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi daʿwa in Gujarat. Majmuʿ al-rasāʾel al-sett by Ḵawj b. Malek and Ketāb pali midu by Shaikh Ādam Ṣafi-al-Din. Montazaʿ al-aḵbār, in two volumes, by Qoṭb-al-Din Borhānpuri is a comprehensive history of the daʿwa. The first volume deals with the history of twenty-one Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebi Imams, and the second volume with the history of the dāʿis beginning with the first dāʿi moṭlaq, Ḏoʾayb b. Musā Wādeʿi, to the year 1824. It is an important source for the later Yemeni and early Indian periods.

Another genre peculiar to the Ismaʿilis is that of sermons (majāles; pl. of majles), prepared by the chief dāʿi to be delivered to the faithful at special sessions. Usually these lectures were written and submitted to the caliph-Imam for approval. Qāżi Noʿmān’s Taʾwil al-daʿāʾem is composed in this form and was delivered as sermons. The most famous is al-Majāles al-moʾayyadiya, in eight volumes, each volume with a hundred majles, composed by Moʾayyad fi-Din of Shiraz. Ḥātem Ḥāmedi abridged those eight volumes in his Jāmeʿ al-ḥaqāʾeq and divided it, according to the subject matter, into eighteen chapters. The al-Majāles al-monstanṣeriya of Abu’l-Qāsem Maliji were written during the reign of Mostanṣer, and the Ma-jāles Abi’l-Barakāt were composed by Abu al-Barakāt Ḥalabi during the reign of Āmer. In addition to these works the following should be noted. The Majāles Sayyedenā Ḥātem Ḥāmedi, Majāles al-noṣḥ wa’l-bayān of ʿAli b. Moḥammad b. Walid, and an anonymous work entitled Majāles ʿĀšuriya, containing sermons to be delivered during the first ten days of Moḥarram.

Among the anthologies of Ismaʿili literature three deserve special mention. The Majmuʿ al-tarbia, compiled by Moḥammad b. Ṭāher Ḥāreṯi, in two volumes, and Ketāb al-azhār wa majmaʿ al-anwār by Ḥasan b. Nuḥ Bharuchi in seven volumes. Both these anthologies have preserved extensive excerpts as well as complete treatises of some of the earlier works which are no longer extant. Ṣanduq al-laʾāliʾ is another anthology that was compiled by an anonymous author (Poonawala, 1977, pp. 144-48, 179-82).

Ismaʿili literature is rich in religious and devotional poetry. Diwāns of Moʾayyad of Shiraz and Solṭān Ḵaṭṭāb are just two outstanding examples among several of this genre of poetry. Semṭ al-ḥaqāʾeq by ʿAli b. Ḥanẓala is a versified version of Ismaʿili doctrines. Al-Orjuza al-moḵtāra by Qāżi Noʿmān, in 2,375 verses, deals with the imamate. His Montaḵaba is yet another attempt at versifying the Pillars of Islam and law. Among the several treatises on the question of the imamate the following should be noted: Taṯbit al-emāma by the caliph-Imam Manṣur, Eṯbāt al-emāma by Aḥmad Nisāburi, Resāla fi’l-emāma by Abu’l-Fawāres, and Ketāb al-maṣābih by Ḥamid-al-Din Kermāni.

Qāżi Noʿmān, the founder of Ismaʿili law, wrote numerous books on jurisprudence, with the Daʿāʾem as the most famous. Among the chancery documents, al-Sejellāt al-mostanṣeriya, and al-Hedāya al-āmeriya, are worth noting from the Fatimid period. Qarāṭis al-Yaman contains letters exchanged between the daʿwa dignitaries in Yemen and India (Poonawala, 1977, pp. 326-28). Ketab al-zina (The book of ornament) of Abu Ḥātem Rāzi is a dictionary of Islamic theological terms, which also contains a section on Islamic heresiography. It is a comprehensive work on Islamic nomenclature and Rāzi’s philo-logical method of discussing the etymologies of those terms sheds light on the history of Arabic linguistics. His other work, Aʿlām al-nobuwa (The distinguishing marks of prophecy), records Ismaʿili views in defense of religion and the principle of prophethood while refuting the arguments of his opponent, Abu Bakr Moḥammad b. Zakariyāʾ Rāzi. In his al-Aqwāl al-ḏahabiya fi’l-ṭebb al-nafsāni, Ḥamid-al-Din Kermāni supported Abu Ḥātem’s criticism of Abu Bakr Rāzi’s views on the therapy of the mind expounded in the latter’s al-Ṭebb al-ruḥāni. Lastly, Esmāʿil b. ʿAbd-al-Rasul Majduʿ’s Fehrest, compiled during the second half of the 18th century, provides a detailed catalog of extant Ismaʿili literature.

In Persian. Nāṣer(-e) Ḵosrow’s works were preserved by the Nezāris of Persia and Central Asia, and most of his extant works are edited and some translated into French, English, and Russian. He was the first Ismaʿili dāʿi to have used Persian exclusively for his intellectual and poetic discourse. His poetry is didactic. His Safar-nāma depicts a vivid picture of the 11th century Islamic world from Transoxania to Egypt and includes visits to Mecca and Jerusalem. He first traveled across the Caspian coast of Persia into eastern Anatolia and southward to Syria and Palestine. He spent three years in Cairo and returned taking the southern route down to Aswān and crossing the Red Sea to the Ḥejāz, the Arabian peninsula to Basra, and passing through the Carmathian (Qarmaṭi) state in Lahsā; finally arriving at Balḵ through southern Persia. His role in the establishment of Persian as a language of philosophical discourse is yet to be assessed.

The Persian Nezāris used Persian exclusively in their religious writings and did not develop any interest in the copying and preservation of the classical Arabic heritage of the Fatimid period. Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ expounded his new teaching (al-daʿwa al-jadida), often called the doctrine of taʿlim, by formulating four propositions. The first demonstrates the need for a teacher in order to know God by refuting rationalism in its contention that human reason by itself is capable of obtaining the absolute truth. Once the need for a teacher is established, the second proposition poses the question: Is any teacher acceptable or must the teacher be a trustworthy person? When the Sunni position that any teacher will do is refuted, the need for a trustworthy teacher (moʿallem-e ṣādeq) is established. The third proposition, directed against non-Ismaʿili Shiʿites, poses the question as to whether it is necessary to know that teacher and acquire knowledge through him. The fourth and the final proposition attempts to answer the issue raised in the third proposition by proving that a particular Imam, that is, an Ismaʿili Imam of Ḥasan Ṣabbāḥ, could be the authentic teacher. He expounded his doctrine in a Persian treatise, Čahār faṣl, which has been preserved only in fragments This doctrine had a great impact on the Sunni population, hence Abu Ḥamed Ḡazāli in his Mostaẓheri tried to wrestle with the intellectual issues posed by this doctrine (see ḠAZĀLI and THE BĀṬENIS).

A major shift in the Nezāri doctrine came during the time of Ḥasan II, the fourth ruler of Alamut, who proclaimed the doctrine of the qiāma (resurrection). From then on the lords of Alamut also claimed the imamate for themselves. With the new doctrine the imam became the focal point, and qiāma meant seeing God in the spiritual reality of the imam. The elaboration of this teaching with its cosmological implication and the development of the doctrine of the Perfect Man in contemporary Sufism paved the way for the future relationship of the post-Alamut Nezāris with Sufism. The Syrian Nezāris do not seem to have been affected by the qiāma doctrine, and they continued the earlier Fatimid tradition.

Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi, a major intellectual figure of the 13th century, a scientist, a philosopher, and a theologian, should be mentioned here for his long association with the Nezāris. It appears that during that period he himself had embraced the Ismaʿili Nezāri faith. In his spiritual autobiography entitled Sayr wa soluk, he describes how his search for knowledge led him to embrace Ismaʿili esoteric philosophy. In it he also elaborates Ḥasan(e) Ṣabbāḥ’s doctrine of taʿlim. Another work, Rawżat al-taslim, also known as Taṣawworāt, an ethico-eschatological guide for ascending from the physical to the spiritual world, is an important testimony to Ṭusi’s Ismaʿili-oriented philosophy.

Despite the Mongol massacres, the Persian Nezāri communities did survive in certain areas, especially in Rudbār and Qohestān and they lived clandestinely under the cover of Sufism. The Nezāris of Badaḵšān and other remote regions succeeded in preserving the bulk of the extant Nezāri literature of the Alamut period. The widely scattered communities of post-Alamut period, differentiated in terms of their vernacular language and socio-ethnic background, more or less developed their own particular religious literature, independently of one another. Nezāri history, for the first two centuries after the fall of Alamut, remains quite obscure. The poet Nezāri Qohestāni was the first post-Alamut author who chose the verse and Sufi forms of expression to conceal his Ismaʿili identity and views; and later authors followed in his footsteps. The period known as Anjedān (q.v.; from the name of this village in central Persia), lasting about two centuries from the second half of the 15th century marks a revival in Nezāri thought and its missionary activities. It was during this period that the Nezāri Imams of the Qāsemšāhi line developed close associations with the Neʿmat-Allāhi Sufi order and attempted to extend their control over the remaining Nezāri communities. Most noteworthy poets and authors of this period are Abu Esḥāq of Qohestān and Ḵayrḵᵛāh of Herat. They were followed by Kāki of Ḵorāsān and his son ʿAliqoli Raqqāmi.

ISMAʿILISM xiv. ISMAʿILISM IN GINĀN LITERATURE

A conspicuous feature in the intellectual history of Nezāri Ismaʿili Shiʿism has been the fundamental impulse to translate the concept of the Imam, which is the central aspect of their faith, within the frameworks of the various philosophical and theological systems it encountered as the movement spread geographically. As a result, Ismaʿili religious texts are frequently characterized by their use of motifs from multiple streams of thought. Thus, works written during the political heyday of Fatimid Ismaʿili rule in Egypt and North Africa in the 9th and 10th centuries draw upon Islamic, Gnostic, Neoplatonic, and Manichean elements to elaborate the concept of the Imam. Similarly, Ismaʿili treatises written in Persia and Central Asia from the 15th century onward explain the significance of the Imam utilizing the Sufi discourse that had become so widespread in these areas.

Not surprisingly, Nezāri Ismaʿili texts from the Indian Subcontinent exhibit a similar adaptive response to the region’s complex religious, literary, and cultural environment. A significant element in this response was the creation of a unique genre of devotional songs called gināns. The Indic term ginān is commonly believed to be derived from Sanskrit jñāna “knowledge derived from meditation.” Composed in the several northwestern Indic languages (such as Gujarati, Sindhi, Punjabi, Hindi) and sung in various Indian rāgas, or melodies, gināns form an important element in the liturgy and devotional life of the subcontinent’s Nezāri Ismaʿili communities to our day. The authorship of these devotional hymns is traditionally attributed to Ismaʿili dāʿis (q.v.), or pirs, of Persian ancestry who were sent to the subcontinent by Ismaʿili Imams living in Persia, in order to propagate the Is-maʿili form of Islam and to provide spiritual guidance to Ismaʿili communities living there (Daftary, pp. 414-15, 442-43).

There is very little accurate information about the reputed authors of the gināns and their activities, as most of what we know about them derives from hagiographic accounts. As a result, we are not certain about significant biographical details such as birth and death dates of many pirs, particularly the earlier ones. In any case, the vast majority of gināns are attributed to the four great pirs who lived between the 12th and 15th centuries: Pir Satgur Nur, Pir Šams, Pir Ṣadr-al-Din, and Pir Ḥasan Kabir-al-Din. A fifth figure, Emāmšāh, who lived in the late 15th and early 16th century, was allegedly the founder of a “schismatic” movement that broke away from the main group to form a separate sect. Each pir was regarded as a tangible symbol of the Imams’ authority in the subcontinent, the “door” to the Imam, without whose guidance and instruction access to religious truths would be impossible. Hagiographic accounts assert that, to overcome cultural and linguistic barriers between themselves and the local populations, the Ismaʿili pirs composed songs to explain fundamental Ismaʿili doctrines to Indian disciples in their native languages and idioms. It is these songs that eventually came to constitute the corpus of what is now called the ginān literature.

In more recent times, community traditions have come to regard these compositions as providing the faithful with an understanding of the “true meaning” of the Qurʾān and serving to penetrate its inner or spiritual (bāṭen, q.v.) significance. The pirs were not ordinary missionaries and evangelists; in the community’s understanding they were spiritually enlightened individuals whose religious authority had been endorsed by the Imams living in the “west” (i.e., Persia). In order that their Indian disciples should fully comprehend the theological significance of the Imam, the pirs taught that the Imam, specifically ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb (q.v.), was the long-awaited tenth incarnation (avatāra) of the deity Vishnu. In this manner they created an ostensible correspondence, or bridge, between the Is-maʿili concept of the Imam with the concept of avatāra as understood in the Vaishnavite form of Hinduism. The translation of the Ismaʿili concept of Imam into a Vaisnavite framework is best represented in the classic ginān, Dasa Avatāra “Ten Incarnations,” of which there are several versions attributed to different pirs (see Khakee).

In the gināns the pirs exhort their disciples to follow Satpanth “the true path,” the name used in the texts to refer to the Ismaʿili tradition. The essence of Satpanth lay in its emphasis on the esoteric and spiritual over the exoteric and material, and the interiorized form of religious practice over mere ritual practice. Satpanth teachings asserted that attachment to the material and transitory world along with negative, egotistical qualities such as anger, greed, and jealousy result in individual souls being trapped in endless cycles of rebirth in the material world. The spiritual enlightenment that is necessary to break these cycles of rebirth is, however, possible only through the allegiance to the Imam (often called Sat Guru “True Guru” or moršed “[Spiritual] Guide”) and his representatives the pirs. It is the Sat Guru who provides the guidance necessary for an ethical and moral life and who also bestows on the disciple the sacred word (shabd/nam/bol) on which to meditate. If successful in the spiritual quest, the disciple would be blessed with the vision (didār/darshan [< Sk.. darśana]) of the Divine Light, the most sublime experience of the spiritual life.

A key aspect of Satpanth Ismaʿili tradition is the spiritual relationship between the Imam and the individual disciple (rikhīsar [Ind.], moʾmen, morid), often portrayed as a bond of love. Indeed, the tradition views love and devotion to the Imam as important preconditions for spiritual enlightenment and salvation. Borrowing images and metaphors from the realm of human love, the pirs frequently invoke in gināns the symbol of the virahinī (Ind.), or woman separated from her beloved, and the viraha, or the longing she feels for him. Based on this symbolism, many gināns represent the disciples of the Imam as virahinīs longing for their beloved Imam. While the representation of the soul as a female longing for vision (didār/darshan) of the Imam is certainly unusual by the standards of the Arabic and Persian literary traditions, it is perfectly in keeping with local Indian literary conventions. Traditions of Indian devotional poetry contemporaneous with the gināns, such as the sant, bhakti, or Sikh traditions, all employ the symbol of the virahinī. Even Sufi poetry written in the Indian vernacular languages adopts this Indic topos. In this way, the gināns explicate core Ismaʿili ideas about the Imam within religious and devotional frameworks that strongly resonated with the broader Indian religious ethos.

ISMAʿILISM xv. NEZĀRI ISMAʿILI MONUMENTS

The principal monuments of the Nezāri Ismaʿili state, which also defined and defended its boundaries, were the exceptionally well-constructed and provisioned castles that dominated the surrounding valleys and countryside. These castles varied in size from the massive fortified complex built on the sides and the top of a spur of the Alborz Mountains at Gerdkuh (q.v.) near Dāmḡān to a cluster of smaller independent fortified sites in Khorasan or the Anṣariya Djebel in Syria. Sometimes three or four large castles were built at a strategic site, such as Ferdows, to protect the southwest flank of the Ismaʿili state.

Although many of these castles in Persia were taken and demolished by the Mongols, the ruins still give an impression of their immense power. As far as we know there are no other Ismaʿili monuments still extant with the exception of isolated remains of pottery kilns, for instance at Andij in Alamut. It should be remembered that Ismaʿili castles, especially the larger ones, were used not only for defensive military purposes, but often constituted complete towns in themselves, acting as the seat of the local governor and his officials, and centers of learning and study, with extensive libraries built within the castle walls and containing valuable manuscripts and scientific instruments. They were also bases from which dāʾis (q.v.; the Ismaʿili missionaries) could be sent to other parts of the state.

From 483/1090, when Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ gained control of the castle of Alamut, until 654/1256, when Rokn-al-Din Ḵoršāh surrendered to the Mongols, the Ismaʿili state consisted of four principal semi-autonomous areas—Rudbār in which Alamut and Lamasar were the principal fortresses, Qumes, the area around Dāmḡān and Semnān, which contained the formidable castles of Gerdkuh and Soru, and Qohestān, in the south of Khorasan, in which most of the recent discoveries of castles have been made. There were also additional sites in Ḵuzestān, Arrajān in particular, where the Ismaʿilis established their hegemony for a few years. The fourth important Ismaʿili area was in Syria where the Ismaʿilis were able to retain their independence until 671/1273, when the last of their castles surrendered to Baybars. The most important Syrian fortress was Maṣyāf, though the castle of Kahf was probably the main residence of the Ismaʿili leader, Rāšed al-Din Senān. This impressive stronghold remained a military post until Ottoman times and was destroyed only at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Another important Ismaʿili center was the cluster of castles around Qadmus including Ḵawābi, Roṣāfa, Qolayʿa, Maniqa and ʿOlleyqa.

In their attempts to persuade their fellow-citizens to join them in their fight against the Seljuqs, the Ismaʿilis often gained control of large fortresses that eventually had to be relinquished after a few years occupation. The outstanding example was their infiltration and occupation of the great castle of Šāhdiz overlooking the Seljuq capital of Isfahan, a considerable blow to the prestige of the Seljuqs. Almost at the same time, around 598/1100, the Ismaʿilis seized Ḵān Lanjān, only seventeen miles south of Isfahan and over 1,000 feet above the valley. Although the capture of Šāhdiz ended tragically, we must admire the verve and ingenuity of the Ismaʿilis.

From the very earliest days of its inception, the boundaries of the new Ismaʿili state had been firmly fixed and the main line of fortresses did not change during the next 166 years. From Alamut the line stretched east to Firuz Kuh and then along the road to Mašhad, past the great complex of strongholds between Semnān and Dāmḡān (q.v.). In Khorasan the line ran southward to Qohestān and the border with Sistān, and westward to Ferdows and Ṭabas. The Ismaʿilis well understood the need for quick communications between each of the centers and these were provided by means of smaller forts, watchtowers and beacons. The vital line of communication between Alamut and the Ismaʿili community in Syria was always kept open and there was regular interchange between these two centers.

The Ismaʿili fortresses are notable examples of military architecture. Their strategic position, and the skilled use of natural resources, ensured that despite the difficulties of the terrain the residents were well supplied with food and water and able to withstand a prolonged siege of many months, even years. Several major considerations were observed in the construction of Ismaʿili castles: The area chosen for fortification was in a strong and naturally defensive position, and in a terrain sufficiently remote and inaccessible to discourage attacks by their far more numerous Seljuq foe and other enemies. The complex of fortresses within the chosen area were able to support each other in the event of attack and possessed an efficient system of communication, whether by beacon or other means. The chosen area usually contained enough natural material, especially wood and stone, to allow for any construction or reconstruction to be carried out expeditiously and with the minimum labor force. The terrain was self-sufficient in water and food supplies—that is to say there was fertile ground and water near by.

The strategy was thus a defensive one and, in the mountains of Qohestān, Alamut, and in Syria, it worked admirably. It differed from that of the Crusaders, who built strong bases from which they pursued an offensive strategy. The Ismaʿilis were able to overcome, often in an astonishing way, the difficulty of building large fortresses on the rugged crest of a high mountain and solidly anchoring the fortress into the hard and unyielding rock. As precipitous an approach as possible was important as this avoided the need for extensive outer walls, and a steep angle of slope made it very difficult for an enemy to set up his ballistae or rely on conventional siege tactics such as sapping and mining. Of course, the Ismaʿilis took every precaution to block off any approach that lay in dead ground and so made their castles virtually impregnable.

Several of the castles were already in existence at the time of the Ismaʿili uprising in the early 480s/1090s and after declaring his allegiance to Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ the new governor would set about rebuilding and enlarging his castle. This was an urgent matter as it was not long before Seljuq troops set out to defeat the “heretics.” The imminent task was to build underground storage rooms containing sufficient food for the garrison for several years. These were so well built that ʿAlāʾ-al-Din ʿAṭā Malek Jovayni, the historian of the Mongol era, complains bitterly how difficult it was to demolish the castle of Alamut after it had surrendered to the Mongols. He is clearly astonished at the amount of stores, both liquid and solid, the castle contained, all still in very good condition.

The military genius behind the construction of Is-maʿili castles seems to have been Bozorg-Omid, Ḥasan-e Ṣabbāḥ’s successor (518-32/1124-38). He rebuilt the castle of Lamasar, the largest Ismaʿili castle, with its complex and highly efficient water storage system. Wherever the slope of a fortified hill was large enough, a well-constructed water catchment area was constructed. When the present author located the site of Soru, not far from Dāmḡān, it was noted that in addition to the water catchment area, which needed to be defended by strong thick walls, water had also been channeled to the main castle from a smaller castle a mile away. The Ismaʿilis were skilled water engineers and agriculturists. Every Ismaʿili castle had a large number of deep limestone-lined water storage cisterns, which were roofed over. Steps led down to the water. Many of the valleys below the castles are now barren and infertile, but some still contain flourishing little farms. Soru is a prime example. In 1972, the present author and his team estimated that the castle of Lamasar was able to rely on almost 400,000 liters of water stored in the castle’s water cisterns and that supplementary water supplies could easily be obtained from the nearby Naina Rud. This amount would be sufficient to keep 500 men and 50 mules or horses in water for three months.

The Ismaʿili castles in Syria, apart from Kahf and Maṣyāf, were not built on the same massive scale as those in Persia. It was some time before the Ismaʿilis were able to acquire their own castles (524-34/1130-40) and often there was insufficient space available to enlarge them greatly, although the walls, entrances and outworks were often rebuilt or strengthened considerably. Thus the Syrian castles tended to be more compact, although they were well provisioned and able to withstand a prolonged siege. The castle of Ḵawābi, for instance, was never taken by Crusaders and the site was reoccupied at the beginning of the 20th century by Syrians who continue to live in the castle ruins. An epigraph shows the date of 708/1308.

Kahf and Maṣyāf are the two most interesting castles in the area. Kahf was the headquarters of Rāšed-al-Din Senān and the last Ismaʿili stronghold to submit to Baybars. It is set on a rocky hill, almost completely covered by undergrowth, overlooking a deep valley and is over 600 meters long. The most important building still standing is the ḥammām or bathhouse, a large and exceptionally well proportioned and elaborate complex, hewn from solid rock on the south side of the castle. Water was brought from a spring 2 kilometers away. Three gates lead into the castle, again hewn from the rock, on which are carved important inscriptions and Qurʾanic verses.

Maṣyāf is the best preserved of the Ismaʿili castles in Syria. It had its origins in Seleucid, Roman and Byzantine eras, and was acquired by the Ismaʿilis in 535/1140 and together with Kahf became the center of Ismaʿili power. It was, however, more exposed than Kahf, besieged unsuccessfully by Saladin in 571/1176, and eventually surrendered to Baybars. The castle was surveyed by Michael Braune in 1983-84 in conjunction with the German Archaeological Institute in Syria and he has compiled a list of thirteen epigraphs in Maṣyāf, most of them dating from 646-47/1248-49, although there is an earlier one of 621/1224. The latest was 1191/1777. Such epigraphs are not found in Persian Ismaʿili castles, but are fairly common in Syria. The defensive arrangements of Maṣyāf are very impressive, and include extensive use of the bent entrance and the concentric principle of fortification.

When the Mongols under Hulagu Khan invaded the Alamut Valley in November 654/1256, they wisely made for the weakest Ismaʿili castle from the military point of view, Maymun Dez. The castle was not set on a great ridge like Alamut and the Mongols were able to use their mangonels with devastating effect. The Ismaʿili Imam, Rokn-al-Din Ḵoršāh, like most other rulers, stood in awe of the Mongols, and soon agreed to surrender all his castles to them. Some of his garrison commanders were reluctant to follow and Lamasar did not surrender for a year. Gerdkuh held out for 17 years. It would have been interesting to see what the outcome would have been if the Ismaʿilis had been able to offer a more spirited resistance. Many of the castles could have withstood a prolonged siege without much difficulty.

The present author has identified the location of a large number of Ismaʿili castles in the last decades of the 20th century, thus making it possible to appreciate more fully the power and influence of the Ismaʿili state, especially the part played by Qohestān. The fortresses at Qāʾen, Fourk, and Šāhdiz are particularly impressive. The ruins of Moʾmenābād cover a large area and this must have been a particularly impressive fortress and city. It was not far from the borders of Qohestān and because of its importance needed to be strongly protected. The Mongols set about its destruction with ferocity. The main curtain wall stretched for about 2 miles over sandy dunes. The track leading to it was closed in 1997 and declared impassable.

Bibiliography:

Max Van Berchem, “Épigraphie des Assassins du Syrie,” JA, série, 9, 1897, pp. 453-501; repr. in idem, Opera Minora, Geneva, 1978, vol. I, pp. 453-501.

Michael Braune, Untersuchungen zur mittelalterlichen Befestigung in Nordwest-Syrien: Die Assassinenburg Masyāf, Damascus, 1985. Bernard Hourcade, Alamut, EIr., I, pp. 797-801.

Wladimir Ivanow, Alamut and Lamasar: Two Mediaeval Ismaili Strongholds in Iran, Tehran, 1960.

ʿAlāʾ-al-Din ʿAṭā Malek Jovayni, Tāriḵ-e jahāngošā, tr. John Andrew Boyle as The History of the World-Conqueror, 2 vols., Manchester, 1958.

M. Kervran, “Une Forteresse d’Azerbaidjan: Samirān,” REI 41, 1973, pp. 71-93.

Caro O. Minasian, Shah Diz of Ismaʿili Fame, Its Siege and Destruction, London, 1971.

J. Phillips, “Assassin Castles in Syria,” The Connoisseur, No. 770, 1976, pp. 287-89.

Samuel M. Stern, with E. Beazley, and A. Dobson, “The Fortress of Khān Lanjān,” Iran 9, 1971, pp. 49-57.

Manučehr Sotuda, Qelāʿ-e Esmāʿiliya, Tehran, 1966. Peter Willey, The Castles of the Assassins, London, 1963.

Idem, “The Valley of the Assassins,” Royal Central Asian Journal 48, 1961, pp. 147-51.

Idem, “Further Expeditions to the Valleys of the Assassins,” Royal Central Asian Journal 54, 1967, pp. 156-62.

Idem, “The Assassins in Quhistan,” Royal Central Asian Journal 55, 1968, pp. 180-83.

Idem, “The 1972 Assassin Expedition,” Royal Central Asian Journal 61, 1974, pp. 60-70.

Idem, University Lectures in Islamic Studies, Vol. II, Altajir World of Islam Trust, 1998, pp. 167-81.

Idem, The Eagle’s Nest: Ismaili Castles in Iran and Syria, London, 2004.

ISMAʿILISM xvi. MODERN ISMAʿILI COMMUNITIES

The Ismaʿilis consist of two main branches—the Nezāri Ismaʿilis and the Mustaʿlian Ṭayyebi Ismaʿilis. Both have their roots in the Fatimid period of Ismaʿili history and differ primarily over their respective belief in the Imamate, spiritual leadership of the community. The Nezāri branch believes in a living physically present Imam, Ḥāżer Imam. Their present and forty-ninth Imam is Prince Karim Aga Khan. The Mustaʿlian Ismaʿilis believe that their twenty-first Imam, al-Ṭayyeb went into physical concealment (satr) and that while the Imamat continues in his line, authority in his physical absence is fulfilled by a vicegerent, dāʿi moṭlaq, who acts on his behalf. In their encounter with modernity therefore, the two communities reflect a different pattern of historical and institutional development.

THE MUSTAʿLIAN ṬAYYEBI ISMAʿILISM

From the 10th/16th century onward the Mustaʿlian Ṭayyebi community became divided into Dāʾudi and Solaymani factions over allegiance to a particular line of dāʿis. The present dāʿi of the major group, the Dāʾudi Ṭayyebis, also known popularly as Bohras, is Sayyednā Borhan-al-Din, the fifty-second in a line of authorities. They are found mostly in South Asia, to a lesser extent in Yemen and in small immigrant communities living in Britain, North America and Sri Lanka.

The other group, called the Ṭayyebi Solaymānis, followed a different line and their present fiftieth dāʿi is al-Ḥosayn b. Esmāʿil al-Makrami, headquartered in the Yemen. Following the annexation of Najrān from the Yemen to Saudi Arabia a community of Solaymānis is also to be found there and an even smaller number lives in India.

Two major dāʿis have played an important role in the modern Dāʾudi Ṭayyebi community. Sayyednā Ṭāher Sayf-al-Din became leader in 1915 and was succeeded in 1965 by the present leader Sayyednā Moḥammad Borhān-al-Din (b. 1915). They have continued to emphasize the strong tradition of learning in the community, as reflected in the further development of the two major libraries in Mumbai and Surat; and the enlargement of the seminary, Jāmeʿa Sayfiya in Surat, an academy of studies and training for religious scholars of the community. There are well established madrasas for the religious education of all followers as well as schools for secular education. The tradition of preserving the heritage of learning through manuscript study has been well preserved and scholarly and literary works, primarily in Arabic, continue to be developed within the community.

The Dāʾudi community is organized under the leadership of the dāʿi, with its headquarters in Mumbai, and with the assistance of the brothers and sons of the dāʿi. The ‘Wazarat al-Safiyya’, the central administrative office, appoints local representatives called ʿāmel, throughout the world. Each ʿāmel heads the local community, organizing religious and social life, including maintenance of places for religious worship and ritual, as well as communal buildings. The legal framework of practice is based on the Daʿāʾem al-Eslām of the Fatimid jurist al-Qāżi al-Noʿmān (d. 363/974). Bohra congregational religious practices include sessions called majāles, where sermons are given, religious poems are recited and other practices distinctive to the tradition are performed. The majority of the Dāʾudi Bohras are in business and industry and have a well-deserved reputation for entrepreneurship and public service. They also run many charitable organizations for the welfare of their communities world-wide.

The Solaymāni community, of predominantly Arab origin in the Yemen, is found in both urban and rural areas, with strong tribal roots. The community of Najrān in Saudi Arabia, has often found it difficult to practice its faith openly and freely. The community in India has produced noted public officials and scholars, the most prominent was Asaf A. A. Fyzee (1899-1981), a lawyer, diplomat, and scholar.

THE NEZĀRI ISMAʿILIS

The modern Nezāri Ismaʿili community which is more numerous has a global presence. Historically, the community reflects the geographical and ethnographic diversity based on the various cultural regions of the world, where its members originated and lived. These heritages are Central Asian, Persian, Arab and South Asian. They are found in some thirty different countries ranging from Iran, Afghanistan, various countries in Africa, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Syria and Tajikistn. During the 19th and 20th centuries many Ismaʿilis from South Asia migrated to Africa and settled there. In more recent times there has been migration from all the parts of the Ismaʿili world to North America and Europe. The shared values that unite the Nezāris are centered on allegiance to a living Imam, at present the forty-ninth hereditary Imam, Prince Karim Aga Khan. The role and guidance of the Imam provides the enabling framework for the development of the community and for the continuity of its Muslim heritage.

The modern phase of the Nezāris Ismaʿili history, as in general with other Muslims, can be dated to the 19th century and to the significant historical changes arising from the growth and enlargement of European presence and power in the Muslim world. Following a period of change and turmoil in Iran during the 1840s, the forty-sixth Imam, Āḡā Ḥasan-ʿAli Šāh (Aga Khan I, q.v.), went to India, where he was the first Imam to bear the title of Aga Khan, granted by the Persian ruler Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah Qajār. His leadership enabled the community in India to lay the foundations for institutional and social developments and also fostered more regular contacts with Ismaʿili communities in other parts of the world. He was succeeded on his death in 1881 by his son Āḡā ʿAli Šāh (Aga Khan II, q.v.) who continued to build on the institutions created by his father, with a particular emphasis on providing modern education for the community. He also played an important role in representing Muslims in the emerging political institutions under British rule in India and encouraging philanthropic efforts to enlarge opportunities for them in social and educational fields. Following his early death in 1885, he was succeeded by his eight-year-old son, Imam Solṭān Moḥammad Šāh, Aga Khan III. He was Imam for 72 years, the longest in Ismaʿili history and his life spanned dramatic political, social and economic transformations among Muslims, as in much of the world at large.

Aga Khan III’s long term involvement in international affairs, including the Presidency of the League of Nations, his advocacy of Muslim interests in troubled times and his commitment to advancing education, particularly for Muslim women, reflect his many and varied contributions. It was however at the level of his leadership as Imam that he was able to transform the modern history of the Is-maʿilis, enabling them to adapt successfully to the challenges and changes of the twentieth century.

Particularly in the Subcontinent and Africa, where enabling conditions existed for the development of the community, the Ismaʿilis established administrative structures, educational institutions, health services and built on economic opportunities in trade and industry. The educational institutions included instruction from early childhood through secondary schooling, with scholarships made available for advanced studies. Schools for girls were established separately, where necessary and female education was given a high priority.

In 1905, the Nezāri Ismaʿili community in East Africa adopted a constitution which laid the basis for an organized framework of institutions and governance at local, national and regional levels. Similar constitutions became part of other Ismaʿili communities and appropriately revised over time, provided guidance for the conduct of personal law and its relationship with other communities in the context of the laws of the land. In 1986, the present Imam, Prince Karim Aga Khan, extended the practice to the world-wide community. The revised Constitution which serves the social governance needs of the Ismaʿilis facilitates a united approach to internal organization and external relations, while taking account of regional diversity and local differences. As in the past, Nezāri Is-maʿilis continue a strong tradition of voluntary service, contributions and donations of time, expertise and personal resources to the Imam and the institutions.

The present Imam assumed his role in 1957 at a time when much of the developing world, including the Muslim world, was going through an important period of transition, often marked by political change and upheaval. These continued throughout the 12th century, making it particularly vital that the Ismaʿilis were guided appropriately through periods of crises and tumultuous changes, as in the case of East Africa and then later Tajikistan, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan. Dislocation often meant that humanitarian concerns for refugee rehabilitation and resettlement took priority, and a significant number of Ismaʿilis also immigrated to Britain, Canada, Europe and the United States. More recently, many refugees have returned to Afghanistan to contribute to nation-building there.

While the internal institutional organizations of the Nezāri community continued to be strengthened and variously reorganized to respond to changing conditions, the Imam also created new institutions to better serve the complex development needs of the community as well as the societies in which the Ismaʿilis lived. This gave rise to the establishment and growth of the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN), an international and inter-denominational group of agencies with the goal of pioneering values and strategies for sustainable human development conducive to the fulfilment of cultural, economic, social and spiritual needs and aspirations of individuals and communities. A number of institutions within AKDN pursue a variety of non-denominational programmes in economic development, education, social development, culture and the environment and poverty eradication, across the world, in rural and urban settings, with a particular emphasis on populations that are disadvantaged.

The Nezāri Ismaʿilis and their Imam view the entire spectrum of their engagement in the world as an expression of an encompassing ethic of Islam and a long standing faith and historical tradition going back to the teachings of the Prophet and the early Imams as reflected in various periods of history, such as that of the Fatimids. Some of these institutions, which work closely with international agencies, national governments, local communities and charitable organizations, have become acknowl-edged world-wide for successfully addressing critical developmental needs through programmes in Architecture and the Environment, Education and in particular childhood and girls’ education, Economic Development and Health Services. This has enabled the Ismaʿili community and the Imamat to become catalysts for innovative approaches to problems of society, without losing the grounding in their Muslim traditions of ethical commitment and interpretations of faith and practice.

The creation of an Institute of Ismaili Studies (q.v.) in London in 1977 has enabled the development of a significant program of research, publications and education to promote scholarship and learning on Islam, Shiʿism and Ismaʿilism. The Institute is increasingly becoming an important international academic forum and reference point for Ismaʿili studies in Arabic, Persian, English and several other languages as well as an important resource for Ismaʿilis for the preservation and study of their heritage.

Each Ismaʿili Jamat, or congregation, is generally served by an Ismaʿili Center called the Jamatkhana, an institutional category of religious spaces common to many Muslim communities. It is a space reserved for tradition and practices specific to the Ismaʿili ṯariqa of Islam. In several cities around the world, such as London, Vancouver, Lisbon, Dubai and Dushanbe, Ismaʿili centers built in the recent past became well-known for their architectural design and for the promotion of cultural, educational and social programmes serving Ismaʿilis and the larger society.

In their modern historical development, the various Is-maʿili communities, Mustaʿlian and Nezāri, represent a case among cases, of how Muslim religious communities might through appropriate interpretation of their heritage create new opportunities to affirm and further some of the positive gains of modernity.

ISMAʿILISM xvii. THE IMAMATE IN ISMAʿILISM

In common with all major Shiʿite groups, the Ismaʿilis (q.v.) believe that the Imamate is a divinely sanctioned and guided institution, through whose agency Muslims are enabled to contextualize the practice of their faith and to understand fully the exoteric and esoteric dimensions of the Qurʾān. The Imamate exists to complement prophethood and to ensure that the divine purpose is fulfilled on earth at all times and in all places.

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE IMAMATE

The historical underpinning for this vision of Islam is based on the cardinal principle of Shiʿite belief that, after the death of the Prophet Moḥammad, his cousin and son-in-law, ʿAli (q.v.), became Imam following a specific designation (naṣṣ) made by the Prophet, based on divine command, before his death (see ḠADIR ḴOMM). Shiʿite historical understanding thus locates itself within a framework of interpretation supported by Qurʾanic verses and Prophetic Hadith. The institution of the Imamate is to continue thereafter on a heredity basis through ʿAli and his wife, Fāṭema (q.v.), the Prophet’s daughter, succession being based on designation by the Imam of the time. Adherence to the doctrine of the Imamate as a pillar of faith meant not only acceptance of, but also devotion to, the legitimate successors of the Prophet. The Imamate is therefore linked to the concept of welāya, devotion to the Imams. The two major branches of the Ismaʿilis, the Nezāris and the Mostaʿlis, affirm a shared belief in the Imamate, but give allegiance to different lines of Imams. The Nezāri Ismaʿilis believe in the physical presence of a living Imam, who for them today is Prince Karim Aga Khan IV, the 49th Imam in direct descent from the Prophet through ʿAli and Fāṭema. The Mostaʿlis believe that their 21st Hidden Imam went into physical concealment around 524/1130; while the Imamate continues in his line, in his physical absence authority is fulfilled by a vicegerent who acts on his behalf. At present this role is held by the 52nd dāʿi (q.v.), Sayyednā Borhān-al-Din (b. 1333/1915) who leads the Dāʾudi Ṭayyebi Bohras, while a smaller Solay-māni Bohra community found in Yemen is headed by their 51st dāʿi, ʿAbdallāh b. Moḥammad (Daftary, pp. 353-57).

One of the most systematic and succinct expositions of Ismaʿili ideas of the Imamate is to be found in a work of Qāżi Noʿmān (d. 363/974) called Daʿāʾem al-eslām. Noʿmān, a leading jurist of the Fatimid period of Ismaʿili history, played a key role in the formation and elaboration of several legal as well as theological works that were regarded as definitive in his time. Welāya, as the basis for belief in the Imamate as defined by Qāżi Noʿmān, is the foremost among the pillars of Islam. However, prior to discussing the question of welāya, he differentiates between eslām (submission) and imān (faith), basing himself on a Qurʾānic verse: “The desert Arabs say ‘we believe.’ Say (to them) ‘You have no faith (imān).’ But rather they should say ‘we have submitted (aslama)’” (Qurʾān 49:14). From this he deduces that one can thus be a Muslim (moslem, i.e., a member of the religion of Islam) without necessarily being a moʾmen. The latter implies belief in and devotion to the rightful Imam; this, in fact, constitutes true faith. The Shiʿite and Ismaʿili claim to welāya is deduced by Noʿmān on the basis of historical events revealing ʿAli’s close proximity to the Prophet, as well as his being the most worthy among the Companions to succeed the Prophet. Then follows a discussion of the indications of preference for ʿAli made by the Prophet throughout his life and confirmed in the declaration at Ḡadir Ḵomm after the so-called Farewell Pilgrimage (ḵoṭbat al-wadāʿ): “He whose mawlā (trustee, helper, lord) I am, ʿAli is his mawlā.” According to this view, having been attached to the establishment of the Imamate, ʿAli was granted the authority to interpret the Qurʾān and to initiate change in society in accordance with these principles adapted to the context of the time. The importance of welāya in Noʿmān’s scheme lies in the fact that the Imam deserves the love and allegiance of the community, quite apart from whether, at a given time, the Imamate is a political office or not (Qāżi Moʿmān, Daʿāʾem I, pp. 14-98; tr., I, pp. 18-122).

Noʿmān then goes on to give the Ismaʿili concept far wider scope by relating it to Qurʾānic analogies and Islamic tradition. He argues that the tradition of designating and establishing the succession has been adhered to throughout the history of the earlier prophets and quotes the specific Qurʾānic instance where Jesus announced the coming of Moḥammad; he also cites other cases of prophets who had designated their legatee (waṣi). The Imamate therefore complements the cycle of prophethood (nobuwwa), sustaining the continuity of divine guidance until the Day of Judgment. In the Ismaʿili view, the function of prophethood to convey God’s message had ended, but the need for affirmation, interpretation, stewardship and spiritual leadership was not yet over: the Imamate fulfils this role.

While the juridical view, as stated in the Daʿāʾem, establishes the foundational Qurʾānic and historical basis for the Imamate, Ismaʿili thought also developed a philosophical approach for this concept. Ḥamid-al-Din Aḥmad Kermāni (d. ca. 411/1021), the Ismaʿili philosopher and dāʿi, who lived during the reign of the Fatimid al-Ḥākem (r. 386-411/996-1021), discusses the fusion of the philosophical basis of Imamate with its juridical aspects. For him, the essence of governing involves the organization of human beings, with all the variety of individual opinions and prejudices they represent, into a divinely ordered pattern. If such a pattern were to become understood and then followed, society as a whole would reflect greater order and consequently greater happiness. According to Kermāni, therefore, the Imam interprets the elements of the divine revelation so that each has its proper place within the integrity of the whole, assuming thereby that human beings and society will find proper equilibrium in both material and spiritual matters. Justice (ʿadl) then comes to be conceived as this state of equilibrium, at the individual and social levels. In the general definitions given by al-Noʿmān, as well as the philosophical exposition of Kermāni, a significant aspect of the Imamate links it to the achievement of justice in society, which in turn reflects the proper intellectual, spiritual, and social maturity of individuals in society. The concepts of din “religion” and donyā “the world,” are both elements in the proper ordering of society and the Imam’s guidance sustains a balance between the two dimensions of life (Walker, pp. 16-24, 62-79).

A further philosophical discourse is represented in Persian Ismaʿili writings such as those of Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow (d. after 462/1070) and Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi (d. 672/1274), where, in connection with their discussion of the concept of higher truths (ḥaqāʾeq, sing. ḥaqiqa), or according to their work, it was through teaching (taʿlim) from the Imam that knowledge (ʿelm), in the fullest sense of the word, could be attained. Such knowledge encompassed the dimension of ẓāher, exemplifying the outward expression of Islam and its practice (as in the Daʿāʾem of Qāżi Noʿmān) and the bāṭen, as embodied in the inner meaning of the ḥaqāʾeq of revelation. The Imamate, through the symbolic interpretation (taʾwil) of the Qurʾān, enabled an understanding of the metaphysical, philosophical and symbolic dimensions of the faith, which is a composite of shariʿa and ḥaqiqa (Hunsberger, pp. 72-90).

Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow’s philosophical writings and his literary work, the Divān (collection of poems), as well as the devotional literature preserved in several vernacular languages in the Ismaʿili tradition, provide passages that illustrate how the Imamate is the gateway through whose intercession, an individual passes through the stages of knowledge that bring about attainment of spiritual goals and knowledge. In his work Sayr wa soluk, Ṭusi relates the concept of taʿlim to the instructional role of the Imamate. He states that after having reached a certain stage through action and individual intellectual effort, an individual becomes aware of the necessity of an authoritative teacher. He states: “Since the circumstances of this world are (always) changing, if at a certain time or under certain circumstances, the speaker of truth (moḥeqq) shows himself to Mankind in a different form expresses himself differently, manifests the truth differently, or institutes the divine law differently (from that of his predecessor), it will not mean that there is any difference in his truthfulness, because (in his essence) he is free from transformation and alteration. Transformation and alteration are the necessary attributes of this world” (Ṭusi, Sayr, text, pp. 4-18; tr., pp. 27-48).

History in Ismaʿili thought, therefore, reflects varied patterns through which institutional order can be realized, according to the guidance of the Imam of the time. The dominant patterns of this process are characterized in the two eras that unfold over time and space: (1) periods of quiescence and interiorization, when circumstances may limit a broader engagement with the world, and (2) a more enabling time when it is possible to engage intellectually and institutionally in the world. In historical and human terms, society during these eras reflects a model of history in which justice remains a constant goal and the function of the Imamate is to give that goal personal meaning and institutional expression and coherence, within the context of faith and reason, applied in diverse and changing circumstances.

The metaphors that underpin this view of history can be considered as elements that give a permanent imprint to Ismaʿili understanding of the sacredness of spiritual authority and knowledge, and to the view that, even when the processes of history might appear to temporarily inhibit the fulfilment of justice, the idioms inherent in these symbols retain their universality. The metaphors connect the social world, in this sense, with the cosmic world and represent a quest for, and the hope of, attaining “higher stages of perfection,” inner and outer, through the Imamate.

THE IMAMATE IN HISTORY

The early Imams. Following the death in 40/661 of ʿAli, whom all Shiʿites regard as the first Imam, the Ismaʿilis acknowledge his son Ḥosayn as having inherited the full authority of Imamate. Although ʿAli’s eldest son Ḥasan is also acknowledged as a successor (in most Shiʿite accounts), the Nezāri Ismaʿilis regard his role as having been custodial, until such time as Ḥosayn assumed the Imamate. Following Ḥosayn’s tragic death at Karbalā in 61/680, he was succeeded by his son ʿAli Zayn-al-ʿĀbedin and then Moḥammad al-Bāqer and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq who died in 148/765). Though none of them exercised a political role, this early period is considered significant, as it is around the Imamate that the identity of the Shiʿites as a group within the Muslim community comes to be consolidated.

The Fatimid Caliph-Imams. After the death of Imam Jaʿfar-al-Ṣādeq, the Shiʿites became eventually divided into two main groups. One accepted Musā al-Kāẓem, one of Imam Jaʿfar’s sons, and these eventually came to be known as Imamis or Twelver Shiʿites (*q.v.), and others acknowledged another son Esmāʿil (q.v.) and his descendants. It is in this time that the Imamate appeared during the rise of the Fatimids, beginning with the public proclamation in 297/909 of the Imamate of ʿAbd-Allāh b. Ḥosayn al-Mahdi (r. 297-322/909-34), the first Fatimid caliph. The group of Imams prior to this, between Esmāʿil and al-Mahdi, are regarded as part of the period of public quiescence and concealment (satr), as they sought to escape persecution.

The Imams of the Fatimid era are well known, and this period of Imamate reflects the flowering of intellectual, cultural, and economic life that became the hallmark of the vast Fatimid empire. The Ismaʿili Imams now ruled as Fatimid caliphs, and their authority was acknowledged in many parts of the Muslim world of the time. Ismaʿili communities flourished in the Middle East, Central Asia, Persia, South Asia, and North Africa (Daftary, pp. 152-222).

The Imamate in Persia. Following the death of the Fāṭimid Caliph-Imam al-Mostanṣer Be’llāh in 487/1094 (r. 427-97/1036-94), the Ismaʿilis became divided into two major groups, one acknowledging continuity of the Imamate in his son Nezār (d. 488/1095), while others recognized a younger son, al-Mostaʿli (r. 487-95/1094-1101). The latter group continued to follow al-Mostaʿli’s son al-Āmer (r. 495-524/1101-30). On al-Āmer’s death in 524/1130, the majority of followers accepted his infant son al-Ṭayyeb, but believed that he went into concealment and that subsequent Imams succeeding him remain hidden, awaiting manifestation of the end of time.

The successors of Nezār inaugurated the Nezāri Ismaʿili Imamate and a state in Persia and Syria, with its main base in the fortress of Alamut (q.v.). This period of the Imamate lasted until the Mongol invasion and destruction of the Ismaʿili state in 654/1256. The Imamate continued thereafter in various parts of Iran, with the Imams maintaining a discrete profile and providing continuity and guidance through their representatives to the scattered communities in Persia, Syria, and Central and South Asia (Daftary, pp. 386-429; see also FATIMIDS, relations with Persia).

The modern period. The modern period, from the middle of the 19th century, is marked by the transition of the Imamate from Persia to India and then to Europe. It is largely dominated by the lives and activities of three Imams: Ḥasan ʿAli Šāh, Aga Khan I (q.v., d. 1881), Solṭān Moḥammad Šāh, Aga Khan III (d. 1957), and the present Imam, Prince Karim Aga Khan IV (b. 1936).

In its modern and contemporary context, the Imamate has been able to provide Ismaʿili communities with guidance and structures to contextualize and implement their faith in a changing world. Among the Nezāri Ismaʿilis, who have emerged in the last hundred years as a well-organized and coherent Muslim community, the Imamate has created new institutions for the governance, social development and religious continuity of the various worldwide communities, spread in some thirty countries. In addition, by creating a global network of institutions, under the umbrella of the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN), the Imam of the time, Prince Karim Aga Khan, building on the groundwork laid by his grandfather, the previous Imam, has sought to realize the social conscience of Islam, through programs that promote social, cultural, and educational development, encompassing some of the poorest areas of Africa and Asia, to serve significant populations, regardless of their origin, gender, or religion. In this way, the Imamate continues to provide guidance and support to Ismaʿili communities and the populations among whom they live (Daftary, pp. 504-48).