Introduction
One might be tempted to follow Gottheil’s lead and collect additional con temporary and late descriptions of the Fāṭimid state and its unique characteris tics. I would, however, suggest shifting the perspective from external observations about the Fāṭimids to the view they had of themselves, i. e. the image propagated and disseminated by them about themselves. I take my cue from Étienne Marc Quatremère who, writing in 1836‒1837, quotes al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān’s work entitled as Iftitāḥ al-dawla al-zāhira (The Beginning of the Glorious Dynasty/State).2 No clue is offered about the identity of the manuscript but the collocation al-dawla al-zāhira is not fortuitous and it should be taken serious since it was part of the original terminology the Fāṭimids used to describe themselves and their place in history. In the Fāṭimid nomenclature their palace complex in Cairo was referred to as al-quṣūr al-zāhira and was imbued with sacredness due to the residency of the imām.3 The notion that anything connected with them was glorious was not only part of the Fāṭimid internal discourse but was also propagated externally to their Sunnī subjects. A recent addition to the corpus of Fāṭimid petitions is a document published in 2011 by Geoffrey Khan which consists of a plea made by a villager in Lower Egypt to al-Ᾱmir (1101‒1130) to issue a prescript ordering a provincial qāḍī to reg ister the house he had inherited from his mother as his property. Although the document is a draft of the petition to be submitted, it contains the stylistic fea tures that typify petitions, including the request “…to be granted his rights so that he might live in these glorious days (al-ayyām al-zāhira)” ( Khan, 2011, 177).
- As is the case with any medieval or modern regime the Fāṭimid rulers had a self-view and a narrative about themselves that they conveyed to the Ismāʿīlī believers and their Muslim and non-Muslim subjects. The narrative constructed by the Fāṭimids was about their right to rule and the characteristics of their rule. The present inquiry goes along with the Fāṭimid story as depicted in a variety of documents and inscriptions but first we have to go back to al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān’s Iftitāḥ al-Dawla.
- The Legitimization of Political Power: Al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān’s Narrative
Al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān’s dogmatic, uncompromising devotion to the Fāṭimid imāms produced a sophisticated, cohesive but ultimately impenetrable text. Elsewhere I have sug gested taking an approach that goes with the text rather than against it, since any attempt to “crack” the text, so to speak, will be futile (Lev 2009, 69). The event took place in the town of Sijilmāsa, in the Western Maghreb, toward the end of August 909. Abū ʿAbd Allāh, the propagandist who brought the Fāṭimids to power and won the support of the Kutāma Berbers to the Fāṭimid cause, addressed them in the following way: “This is my and your master, o the faithful (muʾminūn)”. What was sufficient for them was elaborated in greater detail in a letter addressed to the wider public issued after the capture of Sijilmāsa and the execution of its fleeing governor, al-Yasaʿ ibn Midrār.
In an attempt to conceptualize al-Mahdī’s titles one must go to medieval Islamic discourse on how political power was legitimized and the discussion can begin with the expression khalīfat Allāh and its English translation as God’s Caliph, coined by William Montgomery Watt. Patricia Crone, Martin Hinds, and Wadād Al-Qāḍī have emphasized that the notion that political power wielded by the head of the state was divinely sanctioned was widely held and shared by both the Shīʿīs and Sunnīs. Crone and Hinds have also pointed out that the title amīr al-muʾminīn, Commander of the Faithful, was used for the purpose of address and that its attestations outnumber the title khalīfat Allāh. In any case, the expression khalīfat Allāh powerfully implied that the role of the caliph was both political and religious and that his position as the divinely sanctioned head of the umma elevated him to the status of imām, the religious head of the community of the faithful (Watt 1971, 565‒568; Crone and Hinds 1986, 4‒13; Al-Qāḍī 1994, 247‒250, 252‒256). The debate about the principles of legitimization of political power must also be seen in the context of the political history of early Islam and the fact that the anṣār were barred from political power during the period of the caliphs of Medina, when the leadership of the umma was preserved within the narrow circle of the Meccan muhājirūn and was justified by the principle of qidam and sābiqa (seniority) in Islam. The concept that kinship to the Prophet (qarāba) carries with it legitimizing powers can be traced to the rule of ʿAlī (656‒661) and became a matter of intense dispute between the ʿAlīds and ʿAbbāsids, who claimed that true qarāba to the Prophet goes through his uncle ʿAbbās.
Al-Mahdī’s titles alluded to above (the Commander of the Faithful, the Friend of God and the son of His Messenger) were derived from the rich political vocab ulary of medieval Islam and, it can be argued, conveyed two different meanings about legitimate rule. The first attempt to understand the message conveyed by these titles relates to the sequence in which they appear and the message seems to be that it is the Commander of the Faithful who is the legitimate ruler since he derives his powers directly from God and is also related to the Prophet. A reverse reading according to which only kinship to the Prophet (as claimed by the ʿAlīds) could elevate the (right) person to the position of walī Allāh and entitles him to be amīr al-muʾminīn is also possible. If indeed this simple text was endowed with a double meaning, one must assume that its hidden subtext was well understood by contemporary people. As has been shown by Luke Treadwell the use of the title walī Allāh goes back to the Zaydī imāms of the Caspian Sea region. In the late 910 s, Abū Qāsim Jaʿfar challenged the reigning imām and added this epithet to his coinage (Treadwell 2012, 62‒63).
Another act by al-Mahdī was the adoption of the title khalīfa (20 Rabīʿ I 297/12 December 909), which is alluded to in al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān’s simple but enigmatic phrase “he (al-Mahdī) was bestowed with khilāfa”. Although al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān comments that people rejoiced at the proclamation and delegations came to al-Mahdī, the meaning of the title caliph remains unexplained (Al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān 1970, 253). An explanation must be sought in the wider contemporary framework of 10th-century political thinking. The Qurʾānic meanings of the term khalīfa have been discussed by Watt, Al-Qāḍī, and Han Hsien Liew who heavily rely on Ṭabarī’sTafsīr. Al-Qāḍī has argued that already in the first decades of the 10th century the notion that the Qurʾānic term khalīfa meant to succeed had become well established and embodied in the institution of the caliphate. The implicit meaning here was that the caliphs had been appointed by God to rule in succession and the Fāṭimids contended that this term purportedly referred to them as well. In fact, this title did not become one of the Fāṭimid or ʿAbbāsid official titles and the executive and theocratic powers of the Fāṭimid ruler were conveniently subsumed by the title Commander of the Faithful, which was also attributed to ʿAlī as the first Com mander of the Faithful (Watt 1971, 565‒572; Al-Qāḍī 1988, 392‒411).
Scholars such as Irene A. Bierman, Sherif Anwar and Jere L. Bacharach have drawn attention to the concentric circular format introduced by al-Muʿizz on Fāṭimid coins which alluded to both Shīʿī-Ismāʿīlī religious-political tenets and the invocation of God’s unity. The mixture of sectarian and Islamic universal dogmas is expressed by a number of inscriptions executed in a carefully chosen distinctive layout. Al-Muʿizz’s new dīnārs became known as bullseye style coins and are divided into three groups/types. The inscriptions on dīnārs of the first type include a combined Islamic and Shīʿī-Ismāʿīlī declaration of faith: “There is no God except of God, Muḥammad is God’s Messenger and ʿAlī is the best of God’s Legatees”. These coins also included a reference to the year in which they were minted and an innovative legend that stated: “Al-Muʿizz li-Dīn Allāh, Commander of the Faithful, the Imām Muʿadd summons (all) to (profess) the unity (tawḥīd) of the Everlasting God” (Bierman 1998, 62‒70; Anwar and Bacharach, 2010, 266‒268). Incredibly, given the size of a dīnār coin, another type of al-Muʿizz’s dīnārs carries an expanded versions of inscriptions with Shīʿī-Ismāʿīlī content.
This type contains the legends: “There is no God except of God, He has no partner, Muḥam mad is God’s Messenger”, and “ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib is the Messenger’s Legatee and God’s Representative (nāʾib) and the husband of Radiant Chaste One (i. e. Fāṭima)”. Another legend includes the Qurʾānic verse IX: 33, common on coins minted by Sunnī dynasties: “Muḥammad is God’s Messanger, He sent him with guidance (bi-l-hudā) and the religion of truth (dīn al-ḥaqq) to proclaim it over all religions, even though the polytheists may detest it”. The words referring to “guidance” and “religion of truth” became part of the Fāṭimid self-image since they saw themselves as the executors of this divine mission. Two other legends, on the reverse side, augment the Qurʾānic message and make the reigning imām its bearer: “The servant of God, Muʿadd Abū Tamīm the imām al-Muʿizz li-Dīn Allāh, commander of the faithful, the reviver of the tradition of Muḥammad, master of all messengers, inheritor of the glory of the rightly guided imāms”.