Interesting article

An article worth reading (Ismailis: From Yemen to India and back by Mira Baz).

Summary:

The Sulayhid kingdom was strategically important in the Indian Ocean trade route and, through it, the spread of Ismailism in Yemen and Asia. 

According to the London-based Institute for Ismaili Studies (IIS), the Sulayhids are credited with playing an important role in the spread of Ismailism in South Asia, establishing a new Ismaili community in Gujarat, India, in 1067. They also oversaw the selection of da’is who were dispatched from Yemen to run the new community’s affairs.

Its bleakest times under Zaydi Shia imams in the 16th century AD and later, who considered the sect to be heretical. The Tayyibi Ismailis, who consisted of the Hamdani Yam branch in Wadi Dahr and the Yaaburi in Haraz, turned to the more tolerant Ottomans for protection at the time, but this would soon backfire. The Ottomans’ failure to maintain control of upper Yemen resulted in the persecution of the Ismaili community by the vengeful imam, according to Professor Traboulsi.

“Most of the Zaydi imams oppressed and starved the Ismailis,” says a knowledgeable member of the community who wished to remain anonymous.

The majority of Sulaymanis have made Saudi Arabia’s Najran their center since 1640. They are also known as Makarima after the tribe of al-Makrami which originated in the village of Tayba in Yemen. According to a 2004 Saudi census, they number around 408,000 in Najran, and their da’i is al-Fakhri Abdullah bin Mohammed al-Makrami.

Another quote from the book

Another quote from the book Medieval Islamic Civilization By Josef W. Meri, Jere L. Bacharach that speak about the Tayyibi Schism

The affairs of the Da’wa occupied Arwa, Imam al-Mustansir had appointed her as the Hujja of Yemen, which was the highest rank in the region; in a letter to her in 1088 AD, he asked her to supervise the Da’wa in India. Lamak b. Malik al-Hammadi was the Da’i Balagha under her. On his death, also around 1098AD, his son Yahya took charge of the Da’wa. On Yahya’s death in 1126 AD, the scholar Dhu’ayb ibn Musa al-Wadi’I was entrusted with the affairs of the Da’wa.

In the meantime, al-Afdal, son of Badr al-Jamali and the dictator in Egypt under the Fatimid Caliph al-Mustali had sent in, in 1119, Ibn Najob al-Dawla as as administrator and Da’I of Yemen, sensing the power vacuum that prevailed after ‘Amir al-Mufaddal’s death in 1110 AD. His conflict with Queen Arwa’s Dawa and the local Amirs prompted the Queen to contrive to get him drowned in the Red Sea. However she patched up the problem by giving a member of her own Sulayhid family, ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd Allah, the title Fakhr al-Khilafah to please the Fatimid Caliph, who now was al-Amir. By now Arwa had tired of the Fatimid connection. The opportunity for independence came when, on al-Amir’s death in Egypt in 1130 AD, his minor son al-Tayyib’s right to succeed was usurped by his uncle al-Hafiz.

The Queen and her Da’wa under Dhu’ayb declared for Tayyib and severed their relationship with the last Fatimid Caliphs in 1132. Dhu’ayb al-Wadi’I was declared the first Dai of Mutlaq of the new Tayyibi Dawa of Yemen and India, and he was assisted by a valiant Sultan of Jurayb, al-Khattab ibn al-Hassan ibn Abi’l-Haffiaz al-Hamdani, a warrior and a poet.

When the enemies pointed out that a woman could not have religious leadership, al-Khattab defended Arwa’s position with the argument that her womanly form is only an outward cover. He stated that one had to look to her inner essence and he compared her to Maryam, the mother of Jesus; Khadija, the wife of the Prophet Muhammad; and Fatima, the wife of ‘Ali.

Note: I am a little bit upset that an opportunist monarch and an Ismaili propagandist like Arwa al-Sulayhi is compared to the three of the holiest women on Earth.

Book: Forgotten Queens Of Islam by Fatima Mernissi

In the late 90s, I read the book Forgotten Queens Of Islam by Fatima Mernissi. A chapter in this book is dedicated to the Yemenite Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi.

It contained mostly biographical information, her upbringing, her marriages and also her accomplishment. The wikipedia page (on Arwa al-Sulayhi) contains some information from the book.

She is a very important personality in the Fatimid Mustalian Tayyibi sects (Dawoodi Bohras, Sulaymani and Alevi). She’s revered as much as the other Dais (Ismaili Missionaries/Agent), if not more.

She seemed ambitious, was a capable monarch and served well in her capacity as an Ismaili/Fatimid propagandist. She didn’t really strike me as someone who was trustworthy, honest or sincere. But then again I could be wrong.

The End in Egypt and a new beginning in Yemen

After the death of al-Amir (the 20th Fatimid caliph/Imam), the Mustalian branch of Ismaili continued in Egypt with his cousin al-Hafiz (1130-1149 AD), his son al-Zafir (1149-1154 AD) and his descendants al-Fa’iz (1154-1160 AD) and al-Adid (1160-1171). The Fatimid dynasty ended in 1171 AD when it was taken over by Saladin/Salah al-deen al-Ayyubi.

The Queen of Yemen and the Fatimid Dawa

A new sect (previously known as the Fatimid Mustalian) named Tayyibi emerged in Yemen under the ruler-ship of the Sulayhid Queen (Arwa al-Sulayhi). Upon the death of al-Amir, the Fatimid in Egypt was significantly weaker with internal crises and dynastic disputes. It was then that the Yemenite Queen (Arwa al-Sulayhi), broke away from the Fatimid leadership in Egypt and asserted the independence of her people.

A story was circulated about the arrival of at-Tayyib, an infant son of al-Amir in Yemen (by none other than the Queen). The Queen also utilized the Ismaili doctrine of Satr to explain the disappearance/seclusion of at-Tayyib (the 21^st Imam of Bohras).  She also claimed herself as the deputy of the hidden Imam (naib al Imam). 

From the year 1132 AD, the Ismaili dawa in Yemen was severed from the Fatimid in Egypt. This marks a new beginning in the history of the Mustalian Tayyibi dawa.

Quite possibly the best summary of the Fatimid Schism

I am reproducing the following post with permission from Brother Macisaac (owner of www.tashayyu.org and a ShiaChat admin). He posted the following write-up here. All the credits go to Macisaac and he retains full rights to this entry.

Ever wonder why Isma'ilis are referred to as "Seveners", even though they have many more imams that they believe in? That's because the pre-Fatimid Isma'ili da'wat taught that there were only seven Imams, the seventh being Muhammad b. Isma'il b. Ja'far whom they claimed was the Qaim, was in ghayba, and who would re-appear immanently. This was propagated from some generations until one of their da'is, Sa'id b. al-Husayn, claimed that in fact he was the Imam himself claiming descent from Muhammad b. Isma'il. This split the da`wat into those who thought this was nonsense, and held on to the seven-imam theory (the Qaramita), and those who followed Sa'id. To explain the discrepancy, the da`wat then explained that the whole thing about Muhammad b. Isma'il had really just been a ruse to throw off their enemies, and that he was more a symbol of the general rising of the imams (i.e. Sa'id b. al-Husayn and so on.).

Sa'id, aka 'Ubaydullah al-Mahdi, through the missionary work of Abu 'Abdullah ash-Shi'i established himself in North Africa (leading to the establishment of the Fatimid dynasty. Abu 'Abdillah however after his work for him, was disappointed with his erstwhile master and fell out from him, and was put to death.) The Fatimid ruled their dynasty (with its ups and downs, including the very erratic sixth Fatimid Caliph, al-Hakim) until the death of al-Mustansir. Now, this latter had apparently designated his eldest son (by this time an adult) an-Nizar to succeed him to the throne. The vizier, al-Afdal, however had different plans, and placed al-Mustansir much younger son who was then a child, Ahmad (aka al-Musta'ili), on the throne with him ruling behind the scenes. Nizar was thus deposed, and eventually apparently died in prison. al-Musta'li was eventually succeeded by his son, al-Amir (then five years old), with al-Afdal continuing his role of power. Eventually, al-Amir grew tired of this, and had al-Afdal (the one who placed his father on the throne) killed. al-Amir himself eventually got assassinated (notice there was quite a lot of that amongst the Fatimids?), and did not have an apparent successor. His cousin al-Hafiz then eventually rose to the throne, and it's at this point that the da`wat in Yemen decided to break off from the Fatimids, claiming instead that al-Amir had a son named Tayyib who had gone into ghayba, and that now power had been transferred to the da`i al-mutlaq (absolute da'i). From that time the Musta'li lines continue to this day.

However, in this period now of successive da'is you get eventual splinters amongst them, with rival claimants to the position of da'i al-mutlaq. The OP belongs to the Dawoodi branch which is based in India, while the Sulaymani branch is based in Yemen. The Dawoodis themselves split a number of times, with one of their worst crises being after the sudden death of their 46th da'i, Muhammad Badr ad-Din, without having pronounced a successor. So what did they do? Well a group of their 'ulama appointed Abd al-Qadir Najm ad-Din to act in a caretaker role to the da'wat. What did he eventually do? Pronounce himself to be the da'i al-mutlaq... Nowadays the Dawoodis are run by their da'i (who apparently claims to be infallible now), from whom they have to obtain permission for much of the affairs of their life, only being allowed to study the deeper religious material with his approval (which is hard to obtain). The Dawoodi da'wat is largely a family affair now, with relatives of the da'i holding many of the positions of power over their community.

Who are the Tayyibis?

After the split between the followers of Aga Khan (Nizaris) and Bohras (Mustalians) in the year 1094 AD, we saw another split in the year 1130 AD. The Fatimid caliph Mansur al-Amir Bi Hakimi Illah died and was succeeded by his cousin al-Hafiz.

A section called the Tayyibi (all bohra sects, Sulaymani, Alevi, Dawoodi) rejected the caliphate/Imammah of al-Hafiz. According to them, the caliphate passed to Al-Amir infant son at-Tayyib.

The Tayyibi claim to the Fatimid throne has not really been proven. The infant son (at-Tayyib) of al-Amir supposedly went into seclusion upon arrival in Yemen. 

There are almost no documentations stating that the 20^th Fatimid Caliph, al-Amir, even had a son named Tayyib. 

We don’t really know a whole lot about the 21^st Imam of the Bohras (At-Tayyib). However, we do know when the story (myth to some) about him was circulated.

The split between Bohras and the followers of Aga Khan

The Fatimid Caliph al-Mustansir died in the year 1094 AD. The succession to the Fatimid throne was contested by two of his sons; Nizar (eldest) and Ahmad (much younger).

According to Dr Farhad Daftary

Ahmad who was actually installed as Fatimid caliph with the title of al-Mustali billah. Subsequently, Nizar rose in revolt to assert his claims, but he was eventually defeated and killed in 1095. As a result of these events the unified Ismaili community and dawa of the latter decades of al-Mustansir’s reign was permanently split into two rival branches, the Mustaliyya and the Nizariyya.

The Bohras (Sulaymani, Tayyibi, Dawoodi, Alevi) also known as Mustalians (Mustaliyya) accept Mustali billah as the rightful heir to the Fatimid caliph (al-Mustansir).

The followers of the Aga Khan, also known as the Nizaris (Nizariyya), reject the younger son and accept the caliphate/Imammah of Nizar.

There is an interesting story on who orchestrated the downfall of Nizar (some claim him to be the rightful heir of his father).

Divisions of Bohras

I found an interesting image depicting divisions in the Bohra Community (Fatimid/Mustalian/Tayyibi)

I just noticed that in every 100 or so years, a group is always splitting from the main Tayyibi/Mustalian branch; either due to succession of a Dai or general disagreements with the way the community affair is being run by their authority.

Are we going to see another split among the bohras in the 21^st century?

 

Source: WikiMedia

The Ismailis (Sevener) use of the Satr doctrine

The Fatimids (ancestors of the Ismailis and Bohras) have been known to use satr (concealment from the public eyes) very often and very frequently (to explain the whereabouts of certain Imams or line of Imams). A few examples are

• In the first instance they used it to somehow explain the whereabouts of Ismail ibn Imam Jafar al-Sadiq(as)
• Then it was used to justify and explain the missing Imams (the Imams #8, #9, #10 and #11)
• Then satr was again used to explain the bohras (mustalian) belief in the 21st Imams and his descendents 
• Even other off-shots of Ismailis like the Druzes believe in a ghaybah like satr. The Druzes are awaiting the reappearance of the Fatimid Imam al-Hakim

The Ismailis and the Bohras have continuously maintain that while the Imams are in the period of satr, they (Imams) are continuing propagating the Ismaili doctrines through his representative (Dais). 

Personally, I don’t think we have evidences to support the Imams in Satr (Ismailis Imams #7, #8, #9, #10, #11). 

A follow-up from the Ismaili definition of Satr as a period where their Imams were hidden from the eyes of their followers.

• Who are these powerful enemies (of the Ismailis Imams) causing their Imams to go into satr? 
• Are there any historical evidences that can back this claim about these oppressive villains?
•  What are the names of Dais who propagate the Ismaili message on behalf of the Imams in the period of Satr?

Even the most premier Ismaili historian, Dr Farhad Daftary couldn't give a reasonable explanation on the period of “Satr”. He couldn't find anything worth mentioning about them in his book. This is what he wrote (a total of two paragraphs about the Ismaili Imam in Satr)

Chapter 3, Page 87 from the Book The Isma'ilis: Their History and Doctrines - 2nd Edition by Farhad Daftary

Early Ismaılism, or the pre-Fatimid period in Ismaılı history, is one of the most obscure major phases in the entire history of Ismaılism. It extends from the proto-Ismaılı origins of the movement, in the middle of the 2nd/8th century, to the establishment of the Fatimid caliphate in the year 297/909, a period of almost one and a half centuries. Little reliable information is available on the history and doctrines of the early Ismaılıs who contributed to the success and intellectual development of this branch of Shi'ism. As a result, many aspects of early Ismaılism continue to be shrouded in uncertainty, causing irreconcilable disagreements among modern scholars regarding some key issues and events.

The Fatimid scholars

al-Sijistani and al-Kirmani is commonly associated with the Ismailis/Fatimid dawa. Their ideas are not mainstream Islam.

Brief bio and their works

Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani

Hamid al-Din al-Kirmani

Also, I don’t really have a high opinion about al-Ghazali who is liked by so many Muslims today. Al-Ghazali hated the Ismailis. Ibn Rushd wrote a criticism of al-Ghazali’s work (“The Incoherence of the Philosophers”) called “The Incoherence of the Incoherence”.

It is online located at http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/tt/

Ibn Rushd is famously known (or credited) as the thinker who introduced Aristotle to the west.

Notes:

Post # 3: http://www.shiachat....504-tanzil-aql/
Post #11: http://www.shiachat....mam-al-ghazali/
Post #34: http://www.shiachat....ah/page__st__25