Ismaili History 617 - AL-KAHIR BIN AL-MUHAMMAD (552-557/1157-1162)
Hasan bin Muhammad bin Ali, surnamed al-Kahir bi-Quwatullah, or al-Kahir bi-Ahkami'l was born in 520/1126. His official name with Alamut's records was Hasan bin Muhammad, also known as Hasan I.
In Baghdad, the Abbasid caliph Muktafi (d. 555/1160) was ruling at that time, and was succeeded by caliph Mustanjid (d.566/1170). In Iran, the Seljuq sultan Muhammad I (d. 555/1160) was succeeded by Suleman Shah (d. 556/1161) and Arslan (d.571/1176). In Egypt, the Fatimid ruler al-Faiz (d.555/1160) was followed by al-Adid (d. 567/1171), the last ruler in the Fatimid descent.
The period of al-Kahir was very peaceful, because Seljuq had waged not a single war against the Ismailis. The Nizari state had been recognized by the neighbouring rulers, and the Nizari coinage was also in circulation. The dawr-i satr was almost on the verge of completion, therefore, al-Kahir pre-arranged its celebration in his own period. It appears that he intended few major changes in Alamut, and therefore, he resolved to take over the power from Muhammad bin Kiya. In 554-5/1160, al-Kahir moved to Alamut, and caused a small gathering of the faithfuls, and took the charges from Muhammad bin Kiya in a simple indoor ceremony. He also received a ceremonial oath of allegiance from Muhammad bin Kiya and the followers. He declared Muhammad bin Kiya as his vizir and hailed his valuable services. Al- Kahir made a trip round the valley of Alamut on a horse with his new vizir to inspect the administration. The Nizari state entered henceforward into a new era when an Imam began to govern both religious and temporal powers. John Malcolm writes in 'History of Persia'(London, 1815, 1st vol., p. 402) that, 'Muhammad (bin Kiya Buzrug) probably gave up the name of power, as he constituted himself the vizir of the prince (Imam), whom religious consideration had led him to raise to the dignity of chief ruler.'
Most of the extant sources have come down to us from hostile orbits, who have drawn the conclusion that Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug was the third ruler till 557/1162, which is not in affirmity with the Ismaili traditions. Muhammad bin Kiya held the office till 554/1160 as a third ruler, and then al-Kahir himself became the fourth ruler. Muhammad bin Kiya continued his services as a vizir from 554/1160 till his death in 557/1162.
Mustapha Ghaleb writes in 'A'lam al-Ismailiyya' (Beirut, 1964. p. 244) that, 'Imam al-Kahir executed the affairs of dawa and state together with great deal of intelligence and skill, whom he dealt by his own excellent hands. He issued official orders in all the Ismaili territories, informing Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug as his hujjat and the supervisor in political and martial affairs as well.' Al- Kahir also announced that, 'Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug is my dai, hujjat and special representative. Those who adhere to our doctrines should obey him unitedly in the worldly matters, and comply with his orders, and consider his instructions as if the divine revelation. None should disobey his orders, and remain steadfast therewith, and enforce it as if they are acting for me.'
It is learnt that Hasan bin Sabbah had sent some dais in Iraq, but owing to the incessant raids of the Seljuq, the Ismailis of Iraq lost their contact with Alamut. The local disputes of the dais in Iraq also caused the mission inactive. According to 'A'lm al-Ismailiyya'(p. 245), 'Imam al-Kahir deputed his cousin and a confident dai, Abu'l Hasan Sinan bin Suleman bin Muhammad towards Basra, with an instruction to reorganize the mission works. He blessed him with guidance and advices that proved potential in complying the assignment.' Dai Abu'l Hasan swept off the internal dissensions, and brought the mission of Basra under the Syrian dais.
Zahiri Faryabi was also an eminent Ismaili dai, who had been sent by al-Kahir to a chief dai, Kamaluddin Kohistani for his further training. He was then appointed for the Ismaili mission at Daylam.
Imam al-Kahir died few months after the death of Muhammad bin Kiya at the end of 557/1162 after consigning the Imamate to his son, Hasan II.
It is worthwhile to write that when al-Kahir took power in 554/1160, some misconception took place among the people residing at remote regions, mostly the non-Ismaili Muslims of Qazwin, who cultivated two false theories in the lineage of the Ismaili Imams, which are examined as under:
1. The original name of al-Kahir was Hasan bin Muhammad bin Ali and simultaneously, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya also bore the name, Hasan bin Muhammad. Both were familiar and close to the people in the vicinity of Alamut. When Muhammad bin Kiya died in 557/1162, it seems that the ignorants considered al-Kahir as his son because of knowing him as Hasan bin Muhammad. Besides the preceding, the death of al-Kahir and Muhammad bin Kiya in the same year had been regarded as the death of one character, and that too for Muhammad bin Kiya. This distorted theory had shadowed the historical character of al-Kahir, making him Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya. When this theory became annulled and ineffectual, it was brushed aside by another following theory.
2. In the second theory, the historicity of al-Kahir has been totally ignored, making his real son, Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam (or Hasan II) as the son of Muhammad bin Kiya. This theory makes Hasan bin Muhammad bin Kiya and Hasan, the son of al-Kahir as one and same person.
The zealots had designed the history of Alamut almost from the bits and shreds of above imponderable fictions, and contrived the theory of one Hasan, and that too not the son of al-Kahir, but the son of Muhammad bin Kiya, which are in essence against the Ismaili doctrines. It is seen that few historians have lost sight of the right picture in the genuine Ismaili traditions, and nobody tried to shift the truth, but continued to repeat the fictions, whose historicity are highly doubtful.
When an Imam and his successors offically took charge of the Alamut's rule, most of the people and the ruling powers in Iran amplified their bitter propaganda, fearing that the rulers of Alamut in Alid descent would attract a large following in Shiites Iran, and their political influence would also be threatened. The ruling powers did not need to issue any decree against the Imams, but minted a theory that Imam Hasan II was the son of Muhammad bin Kiya, incorporating it with prevalent rumours and tales. Ata Malik Juvaini's objective was to adulterate and pervert the history of the Imams, therefore, he also derived his informations from such forged accounts, and ignored the genuine Ismaili traditions. He designed quite a doubtful history at his full liberty after the destruction of genuine Ismaili works and documents by the Mongols. This is a sharp weakness of the later and modern sources, indicating a remote possibility, not a strong one.
Ismaili History 618 - HASAN ALA ZIKRIHI'S SALAM (557-561/1162-1166)
Hasan Ali, or Abu'l Hasan, surnamed Zikrihi's Salam (peace be on his mention) was born in Alamut. He is reported to have born in 539/1145, but according to another tradition, he was born in 536/1142.
His other titles were Maliku'r riqab (Lord of the slaves), Maliku'l qulub (Lord of the hearts), Malik as-Salam (Lord of peace), Hasan-i Kabir (Hasan, the great) and Qaim al-Qiyama (Lord of resurrection). Among the Iranian sources, he is widely known as Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam, and in the Syrian sources, he is called Aqa dhikrihi al-Salam. Mustapha Qazwini writes in 'Tarikh-i Guzida' (ed. by Nicholson, Leiden, 1910, p. 523) that, 'He was also known as Kura Kiya (Lord of the villages) in Qazwin, a fact which suggests that the people of Qazwin were especially acquainted with him.'
The historians call him Hasan II with a view to count Hasan bin Sabbah as Hasan I in the series of Alamut's rulers, while other make his father, al-Kahir as Hasan I and Hasan II to him in the list of Alamut's Imams.
To understand the Muslim world, we must cast a rapid glance over contemporary period that the Abbasid caliph Mustanjid (d. 566/1170) was ruling in Baghdad at that time. The Seljuq sultan Arslan (d. 571/1176) was reigning in Iran. In Egypt, the last ruler of the Fatimid empire was al-Adid (d. 567/1171). The Muslim rules were submerging in declination, therefore, none among them had a courage to attack on Alamut.
According to 'Religion, Learning and Science in the Abbasid Period' (ed. by Young, Latham and Ser Jeuit, London, 1990, p. 245), 'Al- Hasan bin Sabbah's two dai successors were followed at Alamut by the Imam al-Hasan bin Qahir bin Muhtadi bin Hadi bin Nizar.'
Ata Malik Juvaini (1126-1283) compiled 'Tarikh-i Jhangusha' in 658/ 1260 which stands an early source material. He and later historians are responsible to distort the historical fact and produced an incredible image of the Ismaili history and doctrines. Juvaini's work, to quote W. Barthold in 'Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion' (London, 1928, p. 40), 'has not yet been valued at his deserts.' Barthold further writes, 'Juvaini is not completely master of his materials; in his narrative there are sometimes flagrant contradictions to be found.' (Ibid.) According to 'Historians of the Middle East' (London, 1962, p. 136), 'Juvaini's sources appear to have been purely oral.' Sir John Glubb also writes in 'The Lost Centuries' (London, 1967, p. 271) that, 'Juvaini served under Halagu in Persia and was thus perhaps obliged to flatter him.' Henry H. Howorth remarks in his 'History of the Mongols' (London, 1876, 1st vol., pp.20-21) that, 'His position prevented Juvaini from being anything but a panegyrist of the Mongols, whose conquests he excuses, and whose western campaign he argues was providentially arranged, so that by their means the religion of Islam might be widely disseminated.' D'Ohsson was the first European to have examined the work of Juvaini critically, and accused him of extravagant flattery of the Mongols, vide 'Histoire des Mongols' (Amsterdam, 1834, 1st vol., p. 20). In the words of Marshall Hodgson, 'Juwayni read records in the Alamut Nizari library after its capture, before ordering its destruction. He wrote an account based on these sources, but altered in form to suit an anti-Nizari taste, and decked with curses.' (op. cit., p. 26). It is therefore, difficult to determine any exactitude in the hyperbolic words of Juvaini as Marshall Hodgson also regards him, 'a special enemy of the Ismailis.' (op. cit. p. 274)
Juvaini emphasised in placing Imam Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam (Hasan II) as the son of Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug, in a doubtful manner. His objective was to connect the lineage of the Imams with Muhammad bin Kiya. Juvaini and the later historians however had to admit that when Imam Hasan II made his appearance before his followers, thronged at Alamut, none opposed or considered him as the son of Muhammad bin Kiya. If there had been a little doubt, it is possible that they, or a faction must have opposed without taking oath of allegiance, as it is a corner-stone of the Ismaili doctrines that an Imam must be a son of the Imam. No person can dare or venture on that occasion to claim for Imamate, and if it was true, it must have been claimed in other region, and not inside the castle, where his life was most possibly fraught in danger.
According to 'Dabistan al-Mazahib' (comp. in 1653, p. 237), 'Only the enemies of Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam considered him the son of Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug.' Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza writes in 'Syrian Ismailis at the time of the Crusades' (an unpublished dissertation, University of Durham, 1963, p. 191) that, 'During his (Hasan II) reign, his enemies spread false rumours that he was not a genuine descendant of Nizar, but these slanders were received by his followers with disgust and dissatisfaction. As for the Imam himself, he paid no attention to such slanders, but continued to send orders to his governors and dais under his seal and signature which include his family trees, thus ignoring the propaganda of his calumniators.'
Juvaini and other attempted to equate Imam Hasan II with Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya, making them one character, and tried to brush aside the historicity of Hasan II. In sum, Juvaini emphasised from beginning to end that Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya had impersonated as an Imam. The undeniable thing in the face of facts however reveals that these two persons, each known as Hasan at one time were two separate characters. Dr. Mustapha Ghaleb in 'The Ismailis of Syria' (Beirut, 1970, pp. 73-74) has appended an important letter of Imam Hasan II, which had been circulated among the Ismailis in 558/1163. This letter itself asserts that both Hasan II and Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya were two separate persons at one time. It reads:- 'Our deputy, al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug is our dai and hujjat. All those who follow our doctrine have to obey him in the religious and civic affairs, and to execute his orders and consider his speeches as ours. We hope that they will not disobey; but be abided by it and act as if it was issued by us.'
It must, of course, be borne in mind that there had been three hidden Imams (al-a'imma al-masturin) between al-Nizar and Hasan II during the period of dawr-i satr in Alamut, whose historicity had been also stamped in the work of Juvaini.
One important Syrian manuscript has been discovered, whose author and date of writing are unknown. The copyist gives his date of writing in 1263/1846. According to Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza, 'The only clues that can be obtained are from the literary style and from the biographical works of the Imams. These suggest that the date (of the above Ms.) may be taken as sometimes during the second half of the 14th century A.D.' (p.176). On pp. 249-250, the author of this Ms. gives the genealogy of Imam Hasan II as 'Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam bin al-Qahir bin al-Mohtadi bin al-Hadi bin al-Nizar.' Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza concludes his remarks that, 'This is the only available Syrian manuscript which gives the same genealogical tree of the Nizari Imams as the one accepted by the modern Aga Khani Ismailis.' (p.176).
Muhibb Ali Qunduzi compiled his 'Irshadu't-talibin di dhikr A'immati'l-Ismailiyya' in 930/1523 and asserts that there were three hidden Imams between Hasan II and al-Nizar, viz. Hadi, Mohtadi and Qahir. Ghiyasu-din bin Humami'd-din Khondamir (d.941/1534) compiled 'Habibu's-Siyar' (Bombay, 1857, 3rd vol., p. 77) in 935/1528, also admits that there were three generations between Hasan II and al- Nizar, i.e., Hadi, Mohtadi and Qahir. Abu Ishaq Kohistani, who died in the beginning of the 16th century also writes in 'Haft Bab' (tr. by W. Ivanow, Bombay, 1959, p. 23) that, 'Mawlana Mustansir was succeeded by Mawlana Nizar, Mawlana Hadi, Mawlana Mohtadi, Mawlana Qahir and Mawlana Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam.'
Among the modern scholars, John Norman Hollister writes in 'The Shia of India' (London, 1953, p. 314) that, 'Nizarin records are scarce having been largely destroyed in the period of Hasan's grandson, or by Halagu Khan when the fortress of Alamut was taken, but the traditions of the sect indicate that there were three Imams during this period: Hadi, son of Nizar, Mahdi or Muhtadi, and Qahir.' According to Margoliouth in 'Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics' (Edinburg, 1974, 2nd vol., p. 141) that, 'Hasan II though supposed to be the son of the governor of Alamut, was in reality the heir of this Nizar.' W. Ivanow also states in 'Ismailitica' (Calcutta, 1922, p. 71) that, 'The version that Hasan was a lineal descendant of Kiya Buzrug Ummid naturally cannot be of sectarian origin, even should it be true.'
Ismaili History 619 - Hasan bin Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug
Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya belonged to the peasant family of Rudhbar. Historian Kamaluddin (d. 660/1262) writes in 'Bugyat al- talab fi tarih al-Halab' that, 'Muhammad bin Kiya had two sons, called Hasan and Hussain, whom he put in school with Rashiduddin Sinan, and gave these three an exact treatment that are needed for supporting the children.' Hasan was a learned orator and eminent dai. With the courtesy of manner and eloquence words, he won over the greater part of the Ismailis in Rudhbar and Kohistan. He was a famous scholar, and wrote several books on Ismaili doctrines. It is related that a group of persons. failing to distinguish between Imam al- Kahir (also known as Hasan bin Muhammad) and Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya (also known as Hasan bin Muhammad), began to think the latter as their Imam. When his father Muhammad bin Kiya learnt the story, he assembled the followers of his son and said:- 'This Hasan is my son, and I am not the Imam, but one of his dais.' According to Marshall Hodgson in 'The Order of Assassins' (Netherland, 1955, pp. 147-8), 'His father at length had to refute this idea at a public meeting, showing that an Imam must be son of an Imam, which Hasan was not.'
Muhammad bin Kiya is reported to have taken strict action to finish the rising faction propagating the imamate of his son and put 250 persons to death and expelled about same number of persons from the valley of Alamut. According to Farhad Daftary, 'Eventually, Muhammad b. Buzurg-Ummid, who like his predecessors was rigid in his observance of the Shariah and the conduct of the dawa on behalf of the Imam, was obliged to take drastic action against the radical Nizaris who followed Hasan and believed in his imamate.' (op. cit., p. 386).
Hence, Hasan also became apprehensive, and compiled treatises, asserting his innocence of such charge publicly. It seems improbable that once Hasan had asserted, then again would have claimed as an Imam after few years, since his assertations were not only verbal but in writing, which exercised as most trenchant source for a long time. Granted that Imam Hasan II was the son of Muhammad bin Kiya, then he must have refuted the treatises he had written in his father's time. His important treatises however, asserting that he was not an Imam, had been also destroyed with Alamut's library, making the field open for Juvaini to alter the history at his disposal.
It has been known that Hasan was not present during the celebration qiyamat-i qubra in Alamut in 559/1164 as he had been delegated to Syria by Imam Hasan II in 557/1162 as his hujjat, and where he is reported to have been killed in 560/1165 at Masiyaf.
Ismaili History 620 - Qiyamat-i Qubra in Alamut
Qiyamat-i qubra or qaim al-qiyama was a famous occasion commemorated in Alamut on 17th Ramdan, 559/August 8, 1164 when Imam Hasan II came out publicly upon the termination of dawr-i satr. In his speech, he announced himself a legitimate Imam in the descent of Imam al- Nizar. Edward G. Browne writes in 'A Literary History of Persia' (London, 1964, 2nd Vol., p. 454) that, 'This Hasan boldly declared himself to be, not the descendant of Kiya Buzrug Ummid, but of the Fatimid Imam Nizar bin al-Mustansir.'
The term qiyama literally means, 'rising' of the dead, and allegorically, it implies an idea denoting the rising to the next spiritual stage, and qiyamat-i qubra (great resurrection) means an attainment of the highest degree when a man becomes free from the ties of external laws, whom he shackles and transfigures into spiritual substance, which rejoins its divine sources.
Before we proceed, one pivot point needs to be touched upon. It is seen that Qadi Noman (d. 363/974) wrote in 'Sharhu'l Akhbar' that, 'The religion of Islam will triumph under al-Mahdi and his descendants, so that the present order will end, and the qiyama will come under one of his successors.' Hamiduddin Kirmani (d. 412/1021) also writes in 'Kitab ar-Riyad' on the authority of 'Kitabu'l Mahsul'that, 'This qiyamat al-qubra is going to arrive when the gates of talim will be closed, and the dawa suspended by the Imam of the qiyamat al-qubra, because by that time the dawa will attain its completion.' Qalqashandi (d. 8121/1418) writes in 'Subh al-A'sha fi Sina'at al-Insha' (13th vol., p. 245) that, 'Hasan bin Sabbah preached the doctrine that the appearance of the qaim al-zaman was imminent and that the revelation of the Imam and his creed were about to take place.' The situation of Alamut was not that of the past, therefore, the Imam of the time was to appear before his followers for their spiritual guidance. Marshall Hodgson writes, 'No doubt men hoped increasingly that time was near when the Imam himself would return from his hiding, and bring his blessing among them again, as it has been among them in the days of Egyptian glory.' (op. cit., p. 147)
Rashiduddin writes in 'Jamiut Tawarikh' (comp. in 310/1310) that, 'On 17th Ramdan of the year 559, he (Imam Hasan II) ordered the people of his territories, whom he had caused to be present in Alamut at that time, to gather together in those public prayers grounds at the foot of Alamut. They set up four large banners of four colors, white, red, yellow and green; which had been arranged for the affairs, at the four corners of the pulpit.' Abu Ishaq Kohistani also gives details in his 'Haft Bab' (pp. 41-2) that, 'The followers from Khorasan stood on the right, the followers from (Persian) Iraq on the left of it, and the Daylamites with the followers from Rudhbar stood right opposite. In the middle a chair was placed, facing the minbar (pulpit), and faqihi Muhammad Busti was ordered to mount it. The Khudawand Ala Dhikrihi's Salam, clad in a white garment with a white turban on his head, descended from the fortress about noon and mounted the minbar from the right, in the most perfect manner. Then he pronounced three times the 'salam' - first addressing the Daylamites, then turning to the right, and then turning to the left. Then he squatted for a while, then rose and holding his sword...' According to Jorunn J. Buckley in 'The Nizari Ismailites' (Stvdia Islamica, Paris, 1984, LX, p. 143) that from the top of the pulpit, Hasan II presented a clear and eloquent epistle, and at the end of the address he said, 'The Imam of the Time sends you blessings and compassion, calling you his specially selected servants.'
Imam Hasan II made his sermons in Arabic. The jurist Muhammad Busti stood up, and translated the Imam's sermons into Persian for those present. It was followed by the ceremony of an oath of allegiance from the cheering followers.
It is a worth consideration to touch here another key point that Imam al-Hadi bin al-Nizar was born in Cairo in 470/1076 and his mother tongue was Arabic. He and his successors, al-Mohtadi and al-Kahir lived within the domestic environs in Iran in the fortress of Lamasar. They did not come in touch of the outside Iranian society and culture for a long time. It is therefore evident that these three Imams spoke Arabic at home, since their home tongue was in all cases Arabic, and Imam Hasan II was also brought up with the prevalent domestic environment. He, as a result delivered his sermons into Arabic, which is concured by the historians. Granted that he was the son of Muhammad bin Kiya, who was an Iranian by birth, then he must have delivered his sermons into Persian, and not into Arabic. Secondly, Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya was hailed from Rudhbar, where he and his forebears were very familiar. The people of Rudhbar during the qiyama stood right opposite the pulpit and Hasan II also mounted the pulpit from that side; who could easily see the Imam without distance. Granted that the Imam on the pulpit was Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya, then it is most likely that the people of Rudhbar had closely perceived him. Since there happened nothing, which affords a further proof that the people of Rudhbar had certainly perceived Hasan II as a son and rightful successor of Imam al-Kahir, and not Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya, whom they knew well, therefore, one can hardly deny the logic springs from the above arguments. According to the Shiite doctrines, the Imamate cannot be altered or changed in any other descent. Nasiruddin Tusi (1201 -1274) in his 'Rawdatu't-Taslim' (ed. and tr. by W. Ivanow, Leiden, 1950, p. 130) quotes Imam Hasan II as saying: 'Know that this Imamate is true, will never go astray, became changed or altered. It was always preserved in the posterity of Mawlana (Ali), and will never become dissociated from them, either in appearance, or in meaning, or reality.' W. Ivanow remarks on the phrase: 'Know that this Imamate is true, will never go astray' that, 'This may mean that the Imamate can never pass to someone, who is not a legitimate successor in the line of Imams.' (Ibid) For further study about the genuine lineage of Hasan II, vide 'Genealogy of the Aga Khan' by Mumtaz Ali Tajddin Sadik Ali, Karachi, 1990.
Most of the Ismaili dais of that period had described the above event in their treatises, notably the fasl of Hussain bin Abdul Malik, Qadi Masud, Amir Hyder Masud etc., but none is survived. Hitherto, however, one ocular-witness of qiyamat-i qubra has been unearthed, who had not identified himself. He was a dai in Qazwin and compiled 'Haft bab-i Baba Sayyid-na' in 597/1200. His original text is edited by W.Ivanow, vide 'Two Early Ismaili Treatises' (Bombay, 1933). Marshall Hodgson has rendered its English translation, vide 'The Order of Assassins' (Netherland, 1955, pp. 279-328). Hasan bin Sabbah, according to the above treatise had foretold the advent of qiyamat-i qubra, and said, 'When the qaim appears, he will sacrifice a camel, and bring forth a red standard' (p. 21). The author further writes, 'And all these (signs) I have actually seen in Imam Ala Zikrihi's Salam.' (p. 21) He also writes, 'Sayyidna Hasan bin Sabbah had sent Hamid as a messenger to Ala Zikrihi's Salam in service and submission, and asked forgiveness of him.' Giving his comments on this very passage, Marshall Hodgson writes, 'This message from Hasan-i Sabbah to Hasan II must be conceived of in the manner of the traditional greeting of the Prophet to his great-great-grandson, the Imam: he asked one of his young companions to greet the child when it should be born.' (op. cit., p. 302)
After the proclamation of the qiyama, Hasan II, in his epistles (fusul) and addresses, hinted palpably that he himself was the Imam of the Age, the son of an Imam from the progeny of Imam Nizar bin al-Mustansir billah.
Writing on qiyama, W. Ivanow says in 'Alamut and Lamasar' (Tehran, 1960 p. 29) that, 'It is quite possible that the period of about 75 years, from the installation of Hasan-i Sabbah in Alamut, a period of continuous hard struggle, have so much matured their spirits that they could be regarded as quite fit to discard the usual external forms of worship, and carry on by their internal spiritual discipline.'
In sum, the qiyama was interpreted to mean the manifestation of the unveiled truth (haqiqa) in the person of the Imam. Thus, the believers were now capable to comprehend the truth. According to this interpretation, the believers could come to know God and the mysteries and realities of creation through an Imam, the epiphany (mazhar) of God on earth. The qiyama also represented an attempt by an Imam to give an interpretation to the Shariah abreast the times. The Imam, henceforward, had began to stress the spirituality and the inner meaning of the religious commandments.
Ten weeks later, a token ceremony of qiyama was commemorated at the fortress of Muminabad, to the east of Birjand in Kohistan, where Hasan II had sent his messenger, Muhammad Khaqan to Rais Muzaffar, his deputy who headed the Ismailis of Kohistan since 555/1160. It was festivated in the fortress of Muminabad on 8th Zilkada, 559/September 18, 1164, where the written sermons of Hasan II were read. In Syria too, the qiyama was announced, evidently a while later in 560/1165.
It appears that the Ismailis began to apply since then the term ala zikrihi's salam (peace be on his mention) with the name of Hasan II, making him known as Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam (Hasan, peace be on his mention), and evidently, such benedictory term cannot be pronounced for any dai like Hasan, the son of Muhammad.
Hasan II rose as an absolute ruler and Imam, and the Dawr-i Satr was replaced by Dawr-i Kashaf. It must be remembered that it was the second dawr-i satr, and the first occured in pre-Fatimid peroiod. According to 'Cambridge History of Iran' (London, 1968, 5th vol., p. 474), 'The term satr had originally referred to those periods when the whereabouts of the Imam was unknown to the world at large, or even, at times, to the faithful, as had been the case among Ismailis before the rise of the Fatimids and again after the death of Nizar.' Dr. Farhad Daftary also writes in 'The Ismailis: their History and Doctrines' (London, 1990, p. 411) that, 'Earlier Ismailis had used the term satr in reference to those periods in their history when the Imams were hidden from the world at large, or even from their followers, as had been the case with the period in early Ismailism between Muhammad bin Ismail and Ubaydullah al-Mahdi and again with the period of satr in Nizarism between Nizar and Hasan II.' The same author further writes (p. 392) that, 'On the basis of the genealogy subsequently circulating amongst the Nizaris, there were three generations between Hasan II and Nizar, Hasan being represented as the son of al-Qahir bin al-Muhtadi bin al-Hadi bin Nizar. Once Hasan II and his son Muhammad II were recognized as Nizarids Imams, the breach with the preceding period of satr in early Nizari Ismailism when the Imam was hidden from his followers and there were only his hujjats and dais at Alamut, was complete.' Dr. Aziz Ismail and Dr. Azim Nanji write in their write-up, namely 'The Ismailis in History' (cf. 'Ismaili Contributions to Islamic Culture' ed. by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Tehran, 1977, p. 248) that, 'Ismaili tradition speaks of the Imam as having been secretly brought into Alamut by Hasan-i Sabbah, who emphatically made it clear that he was acting only on behalf of the Imam. In this respect, the situation was analogue to the period before the rise of the Fatimids, which was known as the dawr al-satr, as the Imams were then believed to be in a state of occultation.'
In sum, according to 'Kalam-i Pir' (ed. and tr. by W.Ivanow, Bombay, 1935, p. 63), 'At the period of the hidden (mastur) Imams, during the first period of satr, which arrived soon after the death of the Prophet and of his Wasi, the hujjat was Abdullah Qaddah, and in the second period of satr, the hujjat was Baba Sayyid-na (Hasan bin Sabbah). And the eternal Light, Mawlana Hadi was he whose mysteries were known to Baba Sayyidna.'
Let us return to the contemporary narrative that Muhammad bin al-Hasan ibn Isfandiyar writes in 'Tarikh-i Tabaristan' (comp. 613/1216) that Ustandar Hazarasf bin Shahrnush (560-586/1164-1190), the Buduspanid ruler of Rustamdar and Ruyan procured close ties with the Ismailis of Rudhbar, and gave them few castles in his territories. In the meantime, Husam ad-Dawla Ardashir (567-602/1172-1206), the Bawandid Ispahbad of Mazandaran raided the territories of Ustandar Hazarasf, who took refuge at Alamut. With the help of Ismaili forces, he took field and invaded his former territories. He killed an Alid who ruled over Daylaman. He was however captured by Ardashir, who killed him in 586/1190.
Meanwhile, the Ismailis had for some time not a single entanglement with the Seljuqids, whose power was rapidly on the decline. In 560/1165, however, during the time of the Seljuq sultan Arslan (556-571/1161-1176), the Ismailis who had then built a new fortress outside Qazwin, besieged that town without availing approval from Alamut. The Ismailis however lifted the siege when sultan Arslan's big force came to the help of the people of Qazwin. In about 561/1166, the Seljuq amir Muhammad bin Anaz attacked on the Ismaili localities at Qazwin in reprisal and killed some of them and taken away rich booty.
A year and a half after the declaration of qiyama, on 6th Rabi I, 561/January 9, 1166, Imam Hasan II was stabbed in the castle of Lamasar by his brother-in-Law, Hasan bin Namavar, who belonged to a local Daylami branch of the Buwahid line, which had ruled in western Iran as a Twelve Shiite dynasty. Hasan II was succeeded by his 19 years old son, Ala Muhammad.
The sayings of Imam Hasan II reflect in the treatises of the contemporary dais, which have been sorted out as under:-
I am the hujja of God, and cause of the non-existence of the people.
In the qiyama whoever arrives at God arrives for eternity, and whoever falls from the Lord falls from eternity.
Righteousness is nearer to God; when you are nothing, He is all. Do not desire a closer nearness than this.
Take care, you who pilgrimage to the house of haqiqa of God, strive today which is the day of qiyama.
Whoever is a man of haqiqa, possesses both the worlds.
Whoever wishes to see the person of righteousness and the person of eternal paradise, he must look at the man who calls the people to God, and knows God, and does not covet in religion.
Ismaili History 621 - ALA MUHAMMAD (561-607/1166-1210)
Nuruddin Muhammad, surnamed Ala, also called Ala Muhammad or Muhammad bin Hasan, was born around 550/1155 or 553/1158 in Alamut. He is also known as Muhammad II, and sometimes as Ziaruddin Muhammad. His mother related to the Buwahid family. Immediately upon his accession, he arrested Hasan bin Namavar and his relatives and sentenced them to death.
Bernard Lewis writes in 'The Assassins' (London, 1967, p. 95) that, 'Hasan was succeeded by his son Muhammad, who proceeded to confirm that his father and therefore he himself were descendants of Nizar, and Imams. He is said to have been a prolific writer, and during his long reign, the doctrine of the Resurrection was developed and elaborated.' B. Hourcade writes that, 'Hasan's son, Nur al-din Mohammad II (d. 607/1210), consolidated the work of his father, whom he pronounced the true Imam, the secret son of a descendant of Nizar who had hidden at Alamut.' (cf. 'Encyclopaedia of Iran and Islam' ed. by Yarshater, London, 1982, p. 800).
Ala Muhammad was greatly engaged in his interest on philosophy and esoteric doctrines. His literary output was voluminous and had compiled several books on Koranic exegesis to broach the doctrines of the Ismailis. He was well steeped in Arabic and composed many proverbs and poetry in Arabic, whose fragments had been into the memories of the Muslims in Qazwin. Few misconception had started among the Muslims during his period about the qiyama in Iran and Syria, therefore, Ala Muhammad wrote several tracts to justify the doctrines of qiyama. In his elaboration of the doctrine of qiyama, he also assigned as usual a central role to the Imam. It further implied a complete personal transformation of the Ismailis who henceforth were expected to see nothing but the Imam and the manifestation of the divine truth in him. The Imam was defined in his essence as the epiphany (mazhar) of God on earth.
The period of Ala Muhammad was longer, in which there had been no war between the Ismailis and neighbouring rules. It is possible that the Abbasid and Seljuq powers were at their downfall, and were incapable to attack the Ismaili castles.
Meanwhile, an important political change took place in Iran and other eastern lands. The Seljuqs disintegrated after Sanjar's death in 552/1157, being replaced by the Turkish amirs and generals. It must be remembered that Tughril Beg (d. 455/1063) had founded the Seljuqid empire in 447/1055 and was declined in 590/1194. This dynasty produced 15 rulers belonging to seven generations.
Towards the end of the twenfth century a new power emerged in the east. South of the Aral sea lay the land of Khawaraz in Central Asia, the seat of an old civilization, whose hereditary rulers assumed the old title of the kings as the Khwarazmshahs. In about 586/1190, the Khawarazmshah Alauddin Tekish (d. 596/1200) occupied Khorasan, thus becoming master of eastern Iran. The Khawarazmians soon came to have an impressive empire of their own, stretching from the boarders of India to Anatolia. The Seljuq dynasty came to an end everywhere except in Anatolia when Alauddin Tekish defeated Tughril III at Ray in 590/1194. The triumphant Khawarazmshah was the obvious ruler to fill the vacancy created by the Seljuqs, and in the following year, the Abbasid caliph Nasir (d. 622/1225) invested Alauddin Tekish with the sultanate of western Iran, Khorasan and Turkistan.
We come across an instance of Ustandar Hazarasf bin Shahrnush (560-586/1164-1190), the Baduspanid ruler of Rustamdar and Ruyan, who had harboured himself at Alamut. According to 'Jamiut-Tawarikh' (pp. 170-173), Hazarasf had cemented his close relation with the Ismailis residing at Rudhbar and granted them few castles in his territories. When his relation deteriorated with his superior, Husam ad-Dawla Ardashir (567-602/1172-1206), the Bawandid Ispahbad of Mazandarn, he took refuge at Alamut as a result. In due course, Hazarasf raided his former territories with the help of the Ismaili fidais and killed an Alid ruler of Daylaman. He was at last arrested and killed by Ardashir in 586/1190.
The hostile Sunni rulers had maintained the tradition of occasionally massacring the Ismailis. It is reported, for instance, according to Ibn Athir (12th vol., pp. 76-7) that a bulk of people accused of Ismailism were killed in lower Iraq in the year 600/1204.
Ismaili History 626 - JALALUDDIN HASAN (607-618/1210-1221)
Hasan, surnamed Jalaluddin was born in 583/1187. He is also called as Hasan III. During his childhood, his father had designated him as his successor. According to John Malcolm in 'History of Persia' (London, 1815, 1st vol., p. 405), 'He is celebrated in Persian history for the kindness and generosity of his disposition; and we are informed that this prince of the Ismailis was the handsomest man for his age'.
Ismaili History 627 - Misconception of the doctrine of Qiyama
Culling up the different narratives, it appears that few Ismailis in northern Syria had misinterpreted the notion of the qiyama among the orthodox Muslims, who also in turn, ignored its inner Islamic substance and devised a derogatory imputation and engineered anti- propaganda in hyperbolic and opprobrious words. Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza writes that, 'Among the Syrian Ismailis who lived far away from Alamut in a different environment, the teachings of the qiyama were probably not fully understood by all.' (Ibid. pp. 156-7) Under these difficult circumstances, the basic teachings of the qiyama was bound to have been different in northern Syria from what was in Iran. Between 559/1164 and 607/1210, the orthodox machine sprouted out from all directions in Iran and Syria, reviling that the Ismailis had violated the Islamic Shariah. Dahalbi (d. 748/1348) writes in 'Zubat at-talab fi Tarikh-i Halab' that, 'The proclamation of qiyama in Iran was obvious, the more so since the Syrian historians clearly know nothing of the event of Alamut.' Such episodes had possibly furnished further weighty excuse for the Muslim opponents of the Ismailis to accuse them of the outright abandonment of the Islamic law. One can judge from the imponderable and starkly fictitous accounts of the contemporary diplomats and travellers, about the nature of the rumours spread against the Ismailis. In a diplomatic report of 570/1175 of an envoy, Burchard of Strassburg, who had been sent to Syria by the Roman king Frederick I Barbarossa (1152-1190), indicates that Burchard had been ill-informed by the local Muslims about the Ismailis during his visit to Syria in 570/1175, which he produced in his report in a distorted form. He writes, 'The Heyssessini live without law; they eat swine's flesh against the law of the Saracens, and make use of all women...' Ibn Jubayr, the Spanish traveller had also passed through the Syrian Ismailis territories on Friday, the 18th Rabi I, 580/June 29, 1184 and describes what he learnt through oral channels that, 'On their slopes are castles belonging to the heretical Ismailites, a sect which swerved from Islam and vested divinity in a man (Sinan).... He bewitched them with these black arts, so that they took him as a god and worshipped him. They abased themselves before him, reaching such a state of obedience and subjection that did he order one of them to fall from the mountain top he would do so, and with alacrity that he might be pleased.' (vide 'The Travels of Ibn Zubayr' tr. by R.J.C. Broadhurst, London, 1952, p. 264). All this sounds that the unrealistic and incredible image of the Ismailis was portrayed in Syria. Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza continues to write: 'This misunderstanding of the spiritual aims of the qiyama, which very likely were only understood by the most learned dais, may together with political consideration have been the factor which prompted the grandson of Hasan Ala Dhikrihi al-Salam to reinstate the observance of the ordinary rituals of the Shariah.' (Ibid. pp. 158-9).
And here we cannot but call attention to the fact that the qiyama involved an emphasis on the batin along with its counterpart, the zahir, was present in Ismailism from the earliest times. It is irrational judgement of some historians that the qiyama involved an abrogation of the shariah, since the Ismailis had seldom deprecated it. Thus, Jalaluddin Hasan restricted his followers not to preach the doctrine of qiyama. The most obvious inference from this action emerges that the esoteric teachings of Islam was privatized, and the tradition of the Sufic khanqah (cloister) came into existence in the Ismailis to observe the esoteric practices in solitude.
Jalaluddin Hasan also cemented cordial relations with the Muslims rulers, so that the Ismailis living in the mountains for many years, can accelerate their economical conditions in the different cities. There are indications that at least some of the Ismailis were becoming increasingly weary of their isolation from the outside world. To make this possible, there had to be at least a measure of outward conformity. For generating friendship with the rulers, Jalaluddin Hasan greatly needed first to make the people known that the Ismailis had never abrogated the Islamic Shariah. He ordered the building of mosques and public baths. He invited the Muslim theologians from Iraq and Khorasan. According to 'The Cambridge History of Iran' (London, 1968, 5th vol., p. 476), 'From the time of Hasan III, the Ismailis attracted to their libraries and to their learned patronage a large number of scholars from the outer world. Such scholars were free to maintain their prior religious convictions.' Ibn Wasil (d. 697/1298) writes in 'Mufarrid al-Kurub' (p. 211) that the Syrian Ismailis were also subsequently informed in 608/1211 to follow the policy of the Imam.
Jalaluddin Hasan sent his envoys to the Abbasid caliph Nasir, Muhammad Khwarazmshah, the rulers of Iraq and Azerbaijan to notify them of his religious policy, making them informed that the Ismailis were the true Muslims. Very rapidly, the Ismailis restored the lost prestige and began to spread in the Muslim cities. The Abbasid caliph Nasir also issued a decree in Baghdad in Rabi I, 608/August, 1211, proclaiming his close ties with Alamut. It is curious that the decree indicates that the Ismaili Imam had embraced Sunnism, which apparently is the addition in the original text by the later Sunni writers.
Some historians have curiously inflated in their narratives that Jalaluddin Hasan had accepted the suzerainty of the Abbasids, which is quite incorrect. Granted that the Alamut had recognized the supremacy of Baghdad, then the Abbasid khutba should have been recited in the territories governed by Jalaluddin Hasan, which, of course did never occur. Secondly, if Alamut had been made the Abbasid's enclave, the rulers of Alamut followed by Jalaluddin Hasan should have been directly appointed from Baghdad according to the prevalent custom, which also never took place. Jalaluddin Hasan had actually cemented his friendly ties with the Abbasids and other Muslim rulers to restore the prestige of the Ismailis.
Jalaluddin Hasan thus was held in high esteem and accepted as a cheif amongst other chiefs, and his rights to the territories he dominated were officially acknowledged by the Abbasids. His mother went on the pilgrimage to Mecca in 609/1213 under the patronage of caliph Nasir, who received her with great pomp and deference. On that occasion, according to 'A Short History of the Khawarzamshahs'(Karachi, 1978, pp. 72 and 207) by Prof. Ghulam Rabbani Aziz that the Abbasid caliph placed the flag of Khwarazamshah behind that of Jalaluddin Hasan, the ruler of Alamut, in the caravan of the pilgrims. She gave great amounts in charity, and had many well dug.
The improved relations were naturally beneficial to the Sunni Muslims as well. For instance, at the end of Jalaluddin Hasan's rule, many Muslims including prominent scholars who were fleeing from the Mongolian strikes in Khorasan, found asylum in the Ismaili towns of Kohistan.
It is seen that the reforms of Jalaluddin Hasan have been taken into a wrong sense by Juvaini and other historians, tincturing with dubious stories. Juvaini claims that Jalaluddin Hasan had given up the creeds of his forefather (p. 698) and professed Sunnism (p. 699). He seems to make a dogmatic different between the Imam with the previous Imams of Alamut. Granted that Jalaluddin Hasan had deserted the creeds of his forefather and embraced Sunnism, then why he retained with him till death the spiritual authority of Imamate, and nominated his son as the next Imam in accordance with the fundamental concept of Shiism? Secondly, it is unlikely to confess the notion advanced by the historians that an Imam had adhered to the Sunnism on one hand and his followers continued to profess Shi'ism of an Ismaili tariqah on other. Jalaluddin Hasan was therefore absolutely an Imam of the Shia Ismaili Muslims, therefore, the opinions of the historians are utterly irrational and unrealistic. According to 'The Cambridge History of Iran' (London, 1968, 5th vol., p. 470) that, 'From an Imamate point of view, he (Jalaluddin Hasan) was undeniably the Imam: he had received the irrevocable designation by the preceding Imam and whatever he ordered was to be received in faith'. Suffice it to say that the Syrian scholar, Arif Tamir cited a letter of Jalaluddin Hasan, in which he claims his Imamate and traces his descent from al-Nizar through Hasan II, vide 'Sinan Rashid-ad- Din aw Shaikh al-Jabal' (al-Adib, 23rd vol., May, 1953, p. 45). It is also a matter worth consideration that his actions were not rejected by his followers, and he was also able to leave Alamut fearlessly and visited in foreign lands for 18 months and returned with no difficulty or mishap. W. Montgomery Watt writes in 'Islam and the Integration of Society' (London, 1961, p. 77) that, 'For the Ismailis, too, the Imam was an absolute autocrat, whose decrees had to be accepted. However strange his new decision might seem, a loyal follower could not question it, since he was bound to regard the Imam as knowing better than himself. In fact the community seems to have followed al-Hasan III without hesitation. He himself may genuinely have believed that he was acting in the best interests of the community.'
Jalaluddin Hasan also procured close relation with the ruler of Gilan, and in 608/1212, he betrothed to the four women of Gilan. One among them was the sister of Kai'kaus bin Shahanshah, the ruler of Kutum, who bore Imam's successor, named Alauddin Muhammad.
Ismaili History 628 - Jalaluddin Hasan in Azerbaijan
Jalaluddin Hasan developed close relation with Muzaffaruddin Ozbek bin Pahlawan Muhammad (607-622/1210-1225), the sixth and last Ildenizid ruler of Arran and Azerbaijan. When Ozbek decided to deal with Nasiruddin Mengli, his deputy in Irak-i Ajam who had rebelled, he sought help from Alamut. Jalaluddin Hasan departed from Alamut under command of his army in 610/1214 to Azerbaijan, where he stayed at Ozbek's court. He remained for sometimes in Bailaqan with Ozbek, whence they sent joint ambassadors to Baghdad, Syria and other lands, seeking reinforcement in expelling Mengli from Irak-i Ajam. The Abbasid sent their army in command of Muzaffaruddin Wajh Sabu and an army was likewise sent from Syria. In 611/1215, a battle was fought near Hamdan, whereupon Mengli was defeated. After the victory, Jalaluddin Hasan was granted the provinces of Abhar and Zanjan.
During the year and a half that Jalaluddin Hasan was in Azerbaijan, Muzaffaruddin Ozbek treated him with great consideration and that was a brotherly feeling between them. Ozbek used to send him abundant supplies of provisions and excessive quantities of money, so much so that after meeting the requiremtns of Jalaluddin Hasan in the way of rations of every kind and after dispensing the gifts and robes of honours which he showered not only upon his great officers but also upon the generality of his troops he would still every day sent 1,000 gold dinars to his treasury for current expenses.
