And in a note at the foot of the page the same scholar remarks with justice that even that branch of the Ismá'ílís from whom was derived the word “Assassin,” and to whom it was originally applied, were by no means the first community to make use of this weapon of a persecuted minority against their oppressors, and that “the Old Man of the Mountain” himself was not so black as it is the custom to paint him.

*

Let us return, however, to 'Abdu'llah b. Maymún al-Qaddáḥ, to whom is generally ascribed the origin of the Isma'ílí power and organisation and the real parentage of the Fáṭimid Caliphs of Egypt and the West; and let us take the account of him given in the Fihrist in preference to the assertions of more modern and less accurate writers. He was, according to this work, a native of Ahwáz; and his father Maymún the Oculist was the founder of the Maymúniyya sect, a branch of the Khaṭṭábiyya, which belonged to the Ghulát or Extreme Shí'ites, teaching that the Imáms, and in particular the sixth Imám Ja'far aṣ-Ṣádiq, the father of Ismá'íl, were Divine incarnations.* 'Abdu'lláh claimed to be a Prophet, and performed prodigies which his followers regarded as miracles, pretending to traverse the earth in the twinkling of an eye and thus to obtain knowledge of things happening at a distance; an achievement really effected, as the author of the Fihrist asserts, by means of carrier-pigeons despatched by his confederates.* From his native village he transferred his residence after a time to 'Askar Mukram, whence he was compelled to flee in succession to Sábáṭ Abí Núḥ, Baṣra, and finally Salamiyya near Ḥims (Emessa) in Syria. There he bought land, and thence he sent his dá'ís into the country about Kúfa, where his doctrines were espoused by a certain Ḥamdán b. al-Ash'ath, of Quss Bahrám, nicknamed Qarmaṭ on account of his short body and legs, who became one of the chief propagandists of the sect, besides giving its members one of the names (Carmathians; Ar. Qirmaṭí or Qirmiṭí, pl. Qarámiṭa) by which they were subsequently known.* One of Ḥamdán's chief lieutenants was his brother-in-law 'Abdán, the author of a number of (presumably controversial) books, who organised the propaganda in Chaldæa, while Ḥamdán resided at Kalwádha, maintaining a correspondence with one of the sons of 'Abdu'lláh b. Maymún al-Qaddáḥ who abode at Ṭáliqán in Khurásán.

About this time 'Abdu'lláh b. Maymún died (A.H. 261 = A.D. 874-5) and was succeeded first by his son Muḥammad, secondly by a certain Aḥmed (variously described as the son or the brother of him last named) called Abú Shala'la', and thirdly by Sa'íd b. al-Ḥusayn b. Abdu'lláh b. Maymún al-Qaddáḥ, who was born in A.H. 260 at Salamiyya in Syria, a year before the death of his grandfather. To him at length was it granted to reap the fruits of the ambitious schemes devised and matured by his predecessors. In A.H. 297 (A.D. 909), learning from his dá'í Abú 'Abdi'lláh that the Berbers in North Africa were impregnated with the Ismá'ílí doctrines and were eagerly expecting the coming of the Imám, he crossed over thither, declared himself to be the great-grand­son of Muḥammad b. Isma'íl and the promised Mahdí, took the name of Abú Muḥammad 'Ubaydu'llah, placed himself at the head of his enthusiastic partisans, overthrew the Aghlabid dynasty, conquered the greater portion of North Africa, and, with the newly-founded city of Mahdiyya for his capital, established the dynasty which, because of the claim which it maintained of descent from Fáṭima, the Prophet's daughter, is known as the Fáṭimid. Sixty years later (A.H. 356 = A.D. 969) Egypt was wrested by them from the House of Ikhshíd, and at the end of the tenth century of our era most of Syria was in their hands. This great Shí'ite power was represented by fourteen Anti-Caliphs, and was finally extin­guished by Saladin (Ṣaláḥu'd Dín) in A.H. 567 (A.D. 1171).

The genuineness of the pedigree claimed by the Fáṭimids has been much discussed, and the balance of evidence appears to weigh strongly against it: there is little doubt that not 'Alí and Fáṭima, but 'Abdu'lláh b. Maymún al-Qaddáḥ was their real ancestor. The matter is discussed at length by de Goeje* with his usual learning and acumen. Amongst the many arguments that he adduces against their legitimacy it is sufficient to cite here one or two of the strongest. Their descent from Fáṭima was denied alike by the 'Abbásid Caliphs (who made no attempt to contest the pedigrees of the numerous 'Alid pretenders, some of them dangerous and formidable enough, who were continually raising the standard of rebellion against them); by the Umayyads of Cordova; and, on two separate occasions (A.H. 402 and 444 = A.D. 1011-1012 and 1052-3), by the recognised representatives of the House of 'Alí at Baghdad. Moreover, the Buwayhid 'Aḍudu'd-Dawla, in spite of his strong Shí'ite proclivities, was so far from satisfied with the results of an inquiry into their pedigree which he instituted in A.H. 370 (A.D. 980-1) that he threatened to invade their territories, and ordered all their writings to be burned. And on the other hand it is frankly admitted in the sacred books of the Druzes, a sect (still active and numerous in Syria) which regards al-Ḥákim, the sixth Fáṭimid Caliph, as the last and most perfect Manifestation or Incarnation of the Deity, that 'Abdu'lláh b. Maymún al-Qaddáḥ was the ancestor of their hero.* When we reflect on the inward essence of the Ismá'ílí doctrine, and its philosophical and cosmopolitan character, we might well imagine that to the fully-initiated members of the sect at any rate it would be a matter of comparative indifference whether their spiritual and temporal rulers were or were not descended from the Prophet through his daughter Fáṭima. But, as we shall see in a later chapter, one of their most talented missionaries in Persia, the poet and traveller Náṣir-i-Khusraw, who held the high title of Ḥujjat, or “Proof,” of Khurásán—a man of fiery zeal and transparent sincerity—certainly believed in the genuineness of the Fáṭimid pedigree.

As regards the rule of the Fáṭimids, it was on the whole, despite occasional acts of cruelty and violence inevitable in that time and place, liberal, beneficent, and favourable to learning.

“The (Isma'ílí) doctrines,” says Guyard,* “were publicly taught at Cairo in universities richly endowed and provided with libraries, where crowds assembled to listen to the most distinguished pro­fessors. The principle of the sect being that men must be converted by persuasion, the greatest tolerance was shown towards other creeds. Mu'izz (the fourth Fáṭimid Caliph, reigned A.D. 952-975) permitted Christians to dispute openly with his doctors, a thing hitherto unheard of; and Severus, the celebrated bishop of Ushmúnayn, availed himself of this authorisation. Out of the funds of the Treasury Mu'izz rebuilt the ruined church of St. Mercurius at Fusṭáṭ, which the Christians had never hitherto been permitted to restore. Certain Musulmán fanatics endeavoured to prevent this, and on the day when the first stone was laid a Shaykh, leaping down amongst the foundations, swore that he would die rather than suffer the church to be rebuilt. Mu'izz, being informed of what was taking place, caused this man to be buried under the stones, and only spared his life at the instance of the Patriarch Ephrem.* Had the Isma'ílí doctrine been able to maintain itself in Egypt in its integrity, it would have involved the civilisation of the Muslim world. Unfortunately, as an actual consequence of this doctrine, a serious change was about to take place in the sect;

*

while, on the other hand, the excesses of the Isma'ílís of Persia and Syria armed against Egypt, the focus of the sect, the pious and orthodox Núru'd-Dín (the Atábek of Syria, A.D. 1146-1173), who succeeded in overthrowing the Fáṭimid dynasty.”

Náṣir-i-Khusraw, who was at Cairo in the middle of the eleventh century of our era, during the reign of al-Mustansir, the eighth Fáṭimid Caliph, gives an equally favourable picture.

“Every one,” says he,* “has perfect confidence in the Sultan, and no one stands in fear of myrmidons or spies, relying on the Sultan to oppress no one and to covet no one's possessions. There I saw wealth belonging to private individuals such that if I should speak of it or describe it the people of Persia would refuse to credit my statements. I could neither limit nor define their wealth, and nowhere have I seen such prosperity as I saw there. There I saw a Christian who was one of the richest men in Egypt, so that it was said that his ships, his wealth, and his estates surpassed computation. My object in mentioning him is that one year the water of the Nile fell short and corn became dear. The Sultan's wazír summoned this Christian and said, ‘The year is not good, and the Sultan's heart is weighed down with anxiety for his people. How much corn could you supply, either for a price or as a loan?’ The Christian answered, ‘Thanks to the fortunate auspices of the Sultan and the wazír, I have in store so much corn that I could supply all Egypt with bread for six years.’* Now the population of Egypt at this time was certainly, at the lowest computation, five times that of Níshápúr; and any one versed in statistics will readily understand what vast wealth one must possess to hold corn to such an amount, and what security of property and good government a people must enjoy amongst whom such things are possible, and what great riches; and withal neither did the Sultan oppress or wrong any one, nor did his subjects keep anything hidden or concealed.”