THE religious and political position assumed by the Shí'a, or “Faction” of 'Alí ibn Abí Ṭálib, has been already discussed at some length, together with the causes which rendered it specially attractive to the Persians. In this chapter we shall have to examine one of the developments of this school of thought, which, though at the present day of comparatively little importance, played a great part in the history of the Muhammadan world down to the Mongol Invasion in the thirteenth century, and to which, therefore, we shall have to refer repeatedly in the subsequent portion of this work.

The Shí'a agree generally in their veneration for 'Alí and their rejection of his three predecessors, Abú Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthmán, and in their recognition of the Imáms of the House of 'Alí as the chosen representatives of God, supernaturally gifted and divinely appointed leaders, whose right to the allegiance of the faithful is derived directly from Heaven, not from any election or agreement of the Church (Ijmá'-i-sunnat). Briefly they may be described as the supporters of the principle of Divine Right as opposed to the principle of Democratic Election.

Further, as we have already seen, most of the Shí'ites (especially those of Persia) attached great importance to the fact that all their Imáms subsequent to 'Alí (who was the Prophet's cousin) were descended also from Fáṭima (the Prophet's daughter), and hence were the direct and lineal descendants of the Prophet himself; and to the alleged fact (see pp. 130-134 and 229 supra) that all the Imáms subsequent to al-Ḥusayn (the third) were also the lineal descendants of the Sásánians, the old Royal Family of Persia.

There were, however, other sects of the Shí'a (Kaysániyya and Zaydiyya) who recognised as Imáms descendants not only of al-Ḥusayn's brother al-Ḥasan (Imáms, that is to say, who made no claim of descent from the House of Sásán) but of his half-brother Muḥammad Ibnu'l-Ḥanafiyya (“the son of the Ḥanafite woman”), who were not children of Fáṭima,* and hence were not the direct descendants of the Prophet. These sects, however, seem, as a rule, to have had comparatively little hold in Persia save in Ṭabaristán (where, as we have seen, a dynasty of “Zaydite” Imáms flourished from A.D. 864 to 928), and need not further claim our attention, which must rather be concentrated on the Imámiyya, or Imámites proper, and its two great branches, the “Sect of the Twelve” (Ithná-'ashariyya ), which prevails in Persia to-day, and the “Sect of the Seven” (Sab'iyya) or Isma'ílís, with its various branches, including the notorious Assassins (Maláḥida, or “heretics” par excellence, as they were generally called by their opponents in Persia), who will form the subject of a later chapter. The fourth and subsequent Imáms of both these important branches of the Shí'a were descendants of al-Ḥusayn, and, as has been already emphasised, enjoyed in the eyes of their followers the double prestige of representing at the same time the Prophetic House of Arabia and the Royal House of Persia.

As far as the sixth Imám, Ja'far aṣ-Ṣádiq (“the Veridical”), the great-grandson of al-Ḥusayn, who died in A.H. 148 (A.D. 765), the Sects of the Seven and of the Twelve agree concerning the succession of their pontiffs, but here the agree­ment ceases. Ja'far originally nominated as his successor his eldest son Ismá'íl, but afterwards, being displeased with him (because, as some assert, he was detected indulging himself in wine),* he revoked this nomination and designated another of his sons, Músa al-Kádhim (the seventh Imám of the Sect of the Twelve) as the next Imám. Ismá'íl, as is generally asserted, died during his father's lifetime; and, that no doubt might exist on this point, his body was publicly shown. But some of the Shí'a refused to withdraw their allegiance from him, alleging that the nomination could not be revoked, and that even if he did drink wine this was done deliberately and with a high purpose, to show that the “wine” forbidden by the Prophet's teaching was to be understood in an allegorical sense as spiritual pride, or the like—a view containing the germ of that extensive system of ta'wíl, or Allegorical Interpretation, which was afterwards so greatly developed by the Sect of the Seven. Nor did Ismá'íl's death put an end to the sect which took its name from him, though differences arose amongst them; some asserting that he was not really dead, or that he would return; others, that since he died during his father's lifetime he never actually became Imám, but that the nomination was made in order that the Imámate might be transmitted through him to his son Muḥammad, whom, conse­quently, they regarded as the Seventh, Last, and Perfect Imám; while others apparently regarded Ismá'íl and his son Mu-ḥammad as identical, the latter being a return or re-incarnation of the former. Be this as it may, de Sacy is probably right in conjecturing* that until the appearance of 'Abdu'lláh b. Maymún al-Qaddáḥ (of whom we shall speak presently) about A.H. 260* (A.D. 873-4), “the sect of the Ismá'ílís had been merely an ordinary sect of the Shí'ites, distinguished from others by its recognition of Muḥammad b. Ismá'íl as the last Imám, and by its profession of that allegorical doctrine of which this Muḥammad, or perhaps his grandfather Ja'far aṣ-Ṣádiq, had been the author.

The genius which gave to this comparatively insignificant sect the first impulse towards that might and influence which it enjoyed for nearly four centuries came, as usual, from Persia, and in describing it I cannot do better than cite the words of those great Dutch scholars de Goeje and Dozy.

“It was,” says the former,* “an inveterate hatred against the Arabs and Islám which, towards the middle of the third century of the hijra, suggested to a certain 'Abdu'lláh b. Maymún, an oculist (Qaddáḥ) by profession and a Persian by race, a project as amazing for the boldness and genius with which it was conceived as for the assurance and vigour with which it was carried out.”

“To bind together* in one association the conquered and the conquerors; to combine in one secret society, wherein there should be several grades of initiation, the free-thinkers, who saw in religion only a curb for the common people, and the bigots of all sects; to make use of the believers to bring about a reign of the unbelievers, and of the conquerors to overthrow the empire which themselves had founded; to form for himself, in short, a party, numerous, compact, and schooled to obedience, which, when the moment was come, would give the throne, if not to himself, at least to his descendants; such was the dominant idea of 'Abdu'lláh b. Maymún; an idea which, grotesque and audacious though it was, he realised with astonishing tact, incomparable skill, and a pro­found knowledge of the human heart.”

“To attain this end a conjunction of means was devised which may fairly be described as Satanic; human weakness was attacked on every side; devoutness was offered to the believing; liberty, not to say licence, to the reckless; philosophy to the strong-minded; mystical hopes to the fanatical, and marvels to the common folk. So also a Messiah was presented to the Jews, a Paraclete to the Christians, a Mahdí to the Mussulmáns, and, lastly, a philosophical system of theology to the votaries of Persian and Syrian paganism. And this system was put in movement with a calm resolve which excites our astonishment, and which, if we could forget the object, would merit our liveliest admiration.”

The only criticism I would make on this luminous descrip­tion of the Ismá'ílí propaganda is that it hardly does justice to those, at any rate, by whose efforts the doctrines were taught, amidst a thousand dangers and difficulties; to that host of mis­sionaries (dá'í, plural du'át) whose sincerity and self-abnegation at least are wholly admirable. And here I cannot refrain from quoting a passage from the recently published Histoire et Religion des Nosairis (Paris, 1900) of René Dussaud, one of the very few Europeans who have, as I think, appreciated the good points of this remarkable sect.

“Certain excessess,” he says (p. 49), “rendered these doctrines hateful to orthodox Musulmáns, and led them definitely to con­demn them. It must be recognised that many Ismá'ílí precepts were borrowed from the Mu'tazilites, who, amongst other things, repudiated the Attributes of God and proclaimed the doctrine of Free Will. Notwithstanding this lack of originality, it appears that the judgments pronounced by Western scholars are marked by an excessive severity. It is certainly wrong to confound, as do the Musulmán doctors, all these sects in one common reprobation. Thus, the disappearance of the Fáṭimids, who brought about the triumph of the Ismá'ílí religion in Egypt, concludes an era of pros­perity, splendour, and toleration such as the East will never again enjoy.”