Ā鶹¹ŁĶų

Table of content

Introduction

A Corrective to ā€˜Ata-Malik Juwayniā€™s Narrative

In the Shadow of the Ilkhanids and Beyond

Testimony of the ±·²¹²õ²¹ā€™i³ó-i Shah-Rukhi

Testimony of the Daā€˜wa Literature of the Indian Subcontinent

Conclusion

Footnotes

Introduction

None of that people should be spared, not even the babe in its cradle.-Edict of Chingiz Khan and Mangu Qaā€™an¹

It is generally believed that the fall of the castle ofĀ AlamutĀ in A.H. 654 (A.D. 1256) marks the end of the Ismaili influence in Gilan. This is a great mistake.
-Hyacinth L. Rabino²

The catastrophic Mongol incursions into the heart of the Muslim world during the thirteenth century left a path of death and destruction in their wake. Though the assaults succeeded in vanquishing Baghdad, toppling the MuslimĀ caliphĀ himself, it is notable that the famous contemporary historian, ā€˜Ata-Malik Juwayni, does not describe this as the pinnacle of Mongol conquest. Rather, for this Sunni historian, the zenith and culmination of the Mongol invasion is the obliteration of the tiny rival enclave of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilis, a Shiā€˜i community centred at the mountain fortress ofĀ Alamut. It is to this singular event that Juwayni dedicates the concluding one-third of hisĀ History of the World Conqueror.³

Ibn al-Athir and later historians record a charming anecdote about this fortress. Apparently, Wahsudan b. Marzuban, one of theĀ JustanidĀ rulers ofĀ DaylamThe highlands in the province of Gilan, near the Caspian Sea in northern Iran., was on a hunting expedition when he saw a soaring eagle alight on a rock. Noticing how strategically ideal the site was, the ruler decided to build a castle there that was henceforth calledĀ Aluh amu[kh]t, which may mean ā€œthe eagleā€™s teaching,ā€Ā ³Ł²¹ā€˜l¾±³¾ al-ā€˜uqabĀ in Ibn al Athirā€™s rendering. The name, later simplified toĀ Alamut, is significant in at least two ways. As noticed by a number of historians, in the traditionalĀ ²¹²śĀį²¹»åĢżsystem of alpha-numeric correspondence, the name is a chronogram for the year 483 AH, corresponding to AD 1090, the very year that Hasan Sabbah, the champion of the Nizari Ismaā€˜ili cause, came into possession of the fortress. From then on, it became the home of theĀ Nizaris, theĀ ³Ł²¹ā€˜l¾±³¾¾±²ā²ā²¹, as they came to be known, reflecting their emphasis on the need for authoritative instruction (³Ł²¹ā€˜l¾±³¾) and reminiscent of this delightful story about theĀ ³Ł²¹ā€˜l¾±³¾ al-ā€˜uqab, the eagleā€™s teaching.⁴

The Mongols sought a complete destruction ofĀ AlamutĀ and the extermination of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilis. Many of the Persian historians, led by Juwayni, believed that they were successful in this endeavour. Until recently, the complete extermination of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ in the face of the Mongol behemoth was also accepted as fact in Western scholarship. Perhaps the first person to draw attention in orientalist circles to the continued existence of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ as well as to their local traditions and literature was Jean Baptiste L. J. Rousseau (d. 1831), who was the French consul-general in Aleppo from 1809 to 1816 and a long time resident of the Near East. He came across theĀ NizarisĀ in Syria and highlighted their sorry plight after their 1809 massacre at the hands of the Nusayris. He was also much surprised, during his participation as a member of an official French mission sent to the court of the Persian monarch Fath ā€˜Ali Shah (d.1834), to find that the community flourished in Iran as well. He wrote a letter about his findings to the famous Parisian scholar, A. I. Sylvestre de Sacy, who quoted it at the end of his pivotal study ā€œMĆ©moire sur la dynastie des Assassins, et sur lā€™Ć©tymologie de leur Nom.ā€⁵

However, this information was scarcely noticed in orientalist circles. It was only with the pioneering efforts of Wladimir Ivanow in the following century that the community finally emerged from academic obscurity. While its continued survival had now become clear, what has hitherto been largely underestimated, if not often unnoticed, is the fact of continued Ismaā€˜ili activity in the regions of Gilan,Ā Daylam, and Mazandaran, including at the fort ofĀ AlamutĀ itself, in the wake of the Mongol invasions. This was first suggested by Hyacinth Louis Rabino (d. 1950), the British vice-consul in Rasht whose writings contributed significantly to scholarship on the south Caspian region.⁶Ā Little use was made of Rabinoā€™s findings in this regard until Farhad Daftary revisited the issue briefly in his work,Ā The Ismaā€˜ilis: Their History and Doctrines.⁷Ā Slightly later, Maryam Muā€˜izzi contributed new insights in her M.A. thesis, completed at Firdawsi University in Mashhad.⁸

In this article it is maintained that Ismaā€˜ili activity in the region in the aftermath of the Mongol invasions was even greater than previously suspected. Inconsistencies and exaggerations in Juwayniā€™s testimony; a correction of his narrative based on other historians, including Rashid al-Din; and the evidence of regional histories, geographical tomes and inscriptions clearly point to sustained Ismaā€˜ili presence in the region. This evidence is further supported by the fifteenth-century Nasaiā€™ih-i Shah-Rukhi, a hostile Khurasani source that clearly indicates thatĀ AlamutĀ was a centre of the Ismaā€˜iliĀ »å²¹ā€˜w²¹Ā to which community funds were sent. The testimony of the ±·²¹²õ²¹ā€™i³ó is supported by that of theĀ »å²¹ā€˜w²¹Ā literature of the Indian subcontinent, which provides very suggestive evidence that the residence of theĀ ImamĀ Islam Shah wasĀ Alamut. From this, it becomes clear that the south Caspian region continued, perhaps sporadically, as an important centre of the Ismaā€˜ili community for over a century after the Mongol irruption. The eagle had, so to speak, returned.

A Corrective to ā€˜Ata-Malik Juwayniā€™s Narrative

The Mongol invasions were undoubtedly a singular event in Islamic history. The cataclysmic proportions of this catastrophe moved contemporary writers to predict the imminent end of the world.⁹Ā Ibn al ā€˜Athir, who himself had witnessed the destruction wrought by the marauding invaders, prefaced his account of the conquest as follows:

I have been avoiding mentioning this event for many years because I consider it too horrible. I have been advancing with one foot and retreating with the other. Who could easily write the obituary of Islam and the Muslims? For whom could it be easy to mention it? Would that my mother had not given birth to me, would that I had died before it happened and had been a thing forgotten. However, a group of friends urged me to record it since I knew it first-hand. Then I saw that to refrain from it would profit nothing. Therefore, we say: this deed encompasses mention of the greatest event, the most awful catastrophe that has befallen time. It engulfed all beings, particularly the Muslims. Anyone would be right in saying that the world, from the time God created humans until now, has not been stricken by its like. Histories contain nothing that even approaches it.¹⁰

As Morgan convincingly argues, it was not mere coincidence that Juwayni makes the Mongol conquest ofĀ AlamutĀ the culmination of hisĀ History of the World Conqueror. As a staunch Sunni Muslim, he could scarcely celebrate the devastation of his co-religionists by his own heathen patron whose service he had entered during his youth. He was therefore at pains ā€œto discern some silver linings in the Mongol clouds.ā€¹¹Ā What better way than to celebrate his patronā€™s victory over the ā€œarch-heretics,ā€ something the Saljuqs had never been able to accomplish?¹²Ā Though he was an eyewitness to the Mongol invasions, Juwayni selectively reports what suits his aim. Numerous authors from the time of dā€™Ohsson in the early 1880s to David Ayalon more recently have vigorously censured Juwayni for ā€œextravagant flatteryā€ of the Mongols, castigating him for being ā€œservileā€- even ā€œnauseating.ā€¹³Ā Edward Granville Browne is somewhat more forgiving, noting that his circumstances ā€œcompelled him to speak with civility of the barbarians whom it was his misfortune to serve.ā€¹⁴

Undoubtedly, the most glaring omission in his tome of the Mongol conquests is his neglecting to mention the fact that the Mongols sacked Baghdad and murdered the last ā€˜AbbasidĀ caliphĀ in 656 AH/1258 CE, unceremoniously rolling him up in a carpet and trampling him to death with elephants.¹⁵Ā Meanwhile, the downfall of the tiny Nizari Ismaā€˜ili state is given great prominence and is the pinnacle of his narrative.¹⁶Ā Juwayni himself composed theĀ fathnamaĀ or proclamation of victory on this occasion.¹⁷Ā We must wonder, though, if Juwayniā€™s own immense distaste for the Nizari IsmailisAdherents of a branch of Shi’i Islam that considers Ismail, the eldest son of the Shi’i Imam JaŹæfar al-į¹¢Ädiq (d. 765), as his successor. was shared to the same degree by his patron. In fact, Hulaguā€™s own attitude appears ambiguous at times. There are instances when he seems to have treated the Ismaā€˜iliĀ ImamĀ with great deference, viewing him with ā€œattention and kindness,ā€ and even bestowing lavish gifts on him.¹⁸

For the same reasons that Juwayni seriously downplays the desolation of the Sunni Muslim world, he revels in the Mongol victories over theĀ Ismaā€˜ilis. Asserting that the ā€œsons and daughters, brothers and sisters and all of [the] seed and familyā€ of the last Ismaā€˜iliĀ ImamĀ ofĀ Alamut, RuknĀ al-DinĀ Khwarshah, were ā€œlaid on the fire of annihilation,ā€¹⁹Ā he triumphantly declares in concluding his history, ā€œHe and his followers were kicked to a pulp and then put to the sword; and of him and his stock no trace was left, and he and his kindred became but a tale on menā€™s lips and a tradition in the world.ā€²⁰Ā While there can be little doubt that the community was devastated – we know independently from theĀ Tarikh-i Tabaristan, for example, thatĀ KhurasanĀ especially was flooded with captive Ismaā€˜ili women and children, sold as slaves – this devastation was not total.²¹

RashidĀ al-DinĀ informs us that the fortress of Girdkuh managed to hold out under extreme siege conditions for almost twenty years, falling only in 669 AH/1270 CE, over a decade after Alamutā€™s capitulation.²²Ā In the same year, an attempt, ascribed to theĀ Nizaris, was made on the life of ā€˜Ata-Malik Juwayni himself, who had written them out of existence scarcely a decade earlier. This strongly suggests that contemporary witnesses still viewed theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ as a force to be reckoned with and were not at all convinced of their extirpation by the Mongols.²³

Both Hamd Allah Mustawfi (d. 750 AH/1349 CE) and Fasih Khwafi (b. 777 AH/1375 CE) inform us that shortly after Girdkuh fell, a group ofĀ Ismaā€˜ilis, led by the ā€œson of Khwarshahā€ whose title was ā€œNaw Dawlatā€ or ā€œAbu Dawlatā€ managed to recaptureĀ AlamutĀ in 674 AH/1275 CE.²⁴Ā The subjugation of the fortress by this son of theĀ ImamĀ RuknĀ al-DinĀ Khwarshah, in league with a descendant of the Khwarazmshahs, led H. L. Rabino to assert, ā€œIt is generally believed that the fall of the castle ofĀ AlamutĀ in AH 654 (1256 CE) marks the end of the Ismaā€˜ili influence in Gilan. This is a great mistake. Either the destruction ofĀ AlamutĀ cannot have been as complete as reported by the Persian writers, or the castle was rebuilt.ā€²⁵

This event involving the son ofĀ ImamĀ Khwarshah forces us to dismiss Juwayniā€™s assertion that the Mongols had killed the entire family, ā€œto even the babe in its cradle.ā€ A careful examination of theĀ History of the World ConquerorĀ further reveals inconsistencies and lapses in Juwayniā€™s testimony, particularly with regards to a parenthetical remark thatĀ ImamĀ RuknĀ al-DinĀ Khwarshah had but a single son – ā€œhe sent out his son, his only one, and another brother called Iran-Shah with a delegation of notables, officials and leaders of his people.ā€²⁶

Prior to this pivotal assertion, Juwayni had mentioned a young son of theĀ ImamĀ RuknĀ al-DinĀ who was sent together with a number of his chief officials to the service of Hulagu. As the historian tells us, the Mongol leader suspected that he had been tricked and that a decoy of the same age had been sent in place of the real son, despite assurances to the contrary. It seems rather more probable that the misgivings were Juwayniā€™s, not Hulaguā€™s. The Mongol conqueror treated the child kindly and allowed him to return on the agreement that one of the imamā€™s brothers, Shiran Shah, would take his place.²⁷Ā RashidĀ al-Din, narrating the same incident, doesnā€™t share Juwayniā€™s doubts about the identity of the boy.²⁸Ā His testimony regarding this event seems more reliable. Juwayni is convinced that evenĀ ImamĀ Khwarshahā€™s ministers and advisers had been duped and were unaware that it was not the real son, which is scarcely a possibility.²⁹Ā Both Juwayni and RashidĀ al-DinĀ record that the child was seven or eight years old.³⁰Ā If indeed this were a decoy, it would have been quite foolhardy to send such a youngster, who would have easily blurted out the truth of his identity under questioning.

Both Juwayni and RashidĀ al-DinĀ mention that when the castle of Maymundiz was conquered in 654 AH/1256 CE, RuknĀ al-DinĀ Khwarshah sent another son to Hulagu together with the imamā€™s brother Iran Shah and various notables and dignitaries.³¹Ā This son was clearly not the same person as the child sent earlier, as Juwayni is confident of his identity.³²Ā RashidĀ al-DinĀ provides the important additional detail that the name of this son was Tarkiya.³³Ā Thus,Ā ImamĀ Khwarshah had at least two sons. This is further supported by Juwayni himself who contradicts his testimony about a single son, by writing about Rukn alĀ DinĀ Khwarshahā€™s ā€œsons and daughters, brothers and sistersā€³⁴Ā in one instance, and again about his ā€œbrothers, children, domestics and dependentsā€³⁵Ā in another.

Whether the son ofĀ ImamĀ Khwarshah who reconqueredĀ Alamut, named Abu Dawlat or Naw Dawlat in our sources, was this Tarkiya, the child sent with Iran Shah, or some other offspring is not possible to determine without more information. If he was either Tarkiya or the child sent with Iran Shah, he would have been in his late twenties when he led his people to victory. Regardless of which of these offspring he was, it is likely he was quite young at the time as RuknĀ al-DinĀ Khwarshah himself was only in his late twenties when the Mongols attacked, his youthfulness being alluded to in numerous places.³⁶

In the Shadow of the Ilkhanids and Beyond

However, the earlier political power of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ had been broken, and the fortress was once again seized from ā€œthe son of Khwarshahā€ by Abaqa Khan (d. 680 AH/1282 CE), Hulaga Khanā€™s eldest son and successor to the throne of the Ilkhanids.³⁷Ā The Mongols did not stay to rule, though. Gilan was never properly conquered by them and, until the time of Uljaytu Khan (d. 716 AH /1312 CE), was left relatively undisturbed due to its inaccessibility.³⁸Ā In fact, we find the area scarcely mentioned in the earlier chronicles of the Mongol period.³⁹Ā Thus, theĀ NizarisĀ were probably able to retain some sort of autonomy inĀ Daylam, just as other groups ruled relatively independently in the surrounding areas. Indeed, Hulaguā€™s great-grandson, Ghazan Khan, who succeeded to the Ilkhanate in 694 AH/1295 CE, refers to the continued presence ofĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ in his time ā€œwho have been in these lands from long ago,ā€ noting that they had a practice of concealing their beliefs.⁴⁰Ā This state of relative independence continued until, hungry for the taxes of the GilaniĀ amirs and power over the silk of that region, Uljaytu brought in his army in 706 AH/1307 CE.⁴¹Ā His foray intoĀ DaylamĀ was marked by plunder and killing.⁴²Ā Most of the Daylamites fled to take refuge in the jungles of the area, and the Mongols took women and children as prisoners.⁴³Ā Uljaytuā€™s victory was not entirely one-sided, though. Hafiz Abru informs us that it was a hard fight, with both sides experiencing heavy casualties.⁴⁴Ā A local chief by the name of Shiru, unidentified but whose defiance and area of activity suggest the possibility of his being an Ismaā€˜ili, resisted the onslaught and managed to plunder the Mongol baggage train, which had been held up by the difficult terrain.⁴⁵Ā Though this Mongol incursion into Gilan was successful, it was, as J. A. Boyle correctly recognised, ā€œat most a Pyrrhic victory.ā€⁴⁶Ā Even if they managed to maintain some residual authority over the region after this expedition, it would have evaporated with the death of Abu Saā€˜id (735 AH/1335 CE), Uljaytuā€™s successor and the last great Mongol Ilkhan. Henceforth, there was no central rule or strong government in the region, a circumstance that would have allowed any remainingĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ in the area a respite from the ravages of the previous decades.

This is supported by theĀ Nuzhat al-Qulub, written in 740 AH/1340 CE, which mentions that the lands of Ashkawar, Daylaman, Talish, Kharaqan, and Khastajan, the great mountainous districts between (Persian) Iraq and Gilan, were under the control of independent governors, each of whom considered himself to be an independent king. The work further goes on to state that the people of many of these areas wereĀ Ismaā€˜ilis.⁴⁷Ā It seems that during this period of respite, the community managed to regroup and within a few decades was able to eliminate some of its opponents, such as Malik Bisutun, a local ruler in Taliqan, in 787 AH/1385 CE.⁴⁸

Despite his clear hostility and stylised diatribes, we are forced to rely onĀ ZahirĀ al-DinĀ Marā€˜ashiā€™s (d. 892 AH/1486 CE) testimony, as he is our only major source for theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ ofĀ DaylamĀ in this period. This author dedicated a whole section of hisĀ Tarikh-i Gilan wa DaylamistanĀ to the history and doctrine of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilis, a section to which he repeatedly refers but which, unfortunately, is absent in the sole surviving manuscript of the work. In itself, the attention of this author, who lived two centuries after the Mongol destruction ofĀ Alamut, is testimony to the Ismaā€˜ili communityā€™s enduring presence and influence in the region.⁴⁹

By 770 AH/1368-69 CE, the whole of Daylaman seems once again to have come under Ismaā€˜ili rule and was governed by Kiya SayfĀ al-DinĀ of the Kushayji family. While the Ismaā€˜ili religious tendencies of the Daylamites and their leaders were suspected, they do not appear to have been proclaimed openly. Administrating from his residence in Marjikuli (modern day Mirjankuli), this leader received a hostile letter from the neighbouring Zaydi ruler,Ā SayyidĀ ā€˜Ali Kiya b.Ā AmirĀ Malati, who would later go on to found the Caspian Zaydi dynasty ofĀ AmirĀ Kiyaā€™i sayyids that would endure until theĀ SafawidsĀ subdued Gilan in 1000 AH/1592 CE. In his letter he severely denounced theĀ malahida-i ismaā€˜iliĀ and prevailed upon Kiya SayfĀ al-DinĀ to rid his territories of the hated sectarians. The Ismaā€˜ili leader replied indignantly to the messenger, declaring his familyā€™s religion openly, ā€œMy ancestors followed the religion of Muhammad, upon whom be peace, and were followers and believers in the sayyids of the line of Ismaā€˜il b. Jaā€˜far. Nobody has a right to order us in this manner.ā€⁵⁰Ā The stinging rejoinder moved ā€˜Ali Kiya to prepare his troops for battle. When Kiya SayfĀ al-DinĀ heard of these preparations, he immediately readied his own Daylami troops. The two parties clashed in 779 AH/1377-78 CE.

In the battle, Kiya Sayf al-Dinā€™s troops were routed and this Ismaā€˜ili leader was forced to flee.Ā SayyidĀ ā€˜Ali Kiya quickly set about to ā€œrepulse and obliterate the path of impiety and depravity [of Ismaā€˜ilism] that the people of that realm had adopted for some years.ā€⁵¹Ā If indeed Ismaā€˜ilism had only recently been accepted by the people, as Marā€˜ashi implies, it is an indication that efforts at conversion were being made. However, given the traditional Ismaā€˜ili associations of the area, it is perhaps more likely that extremely difficult circumstances had forced the sectarians underground and it was only in the less hostile environ ment permitted by an Ismaā€˜ili ruler that they became bolder in asserting their identity. ā€˜Ali Kiyaā€™s new lieutenant,Ā AmirĀ ā€˜Ali, pursued SayfĀ al-Din, eventually capturing and beheading him. The head was sent forthwith to ā€˜Ali Kiya.

Led by a certain Dabbaj Bahadur, the members of the Kushayji family and their followers regrouped in Qazwin. They managed to exact revenge and did away withĀ AmirĀ ā€˜Ali. NumerousĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ then sought refuge in Qazwin, from where they made forays into Daylaman. Writing just a few decades earlier, Hamd Allah Mustawfi, himself a native of Qazwin, had remarked that though the city was encompassed byĀ Ismaā€˜ilis, its population remained largely Sunni of theĀ Shafiā€˜iĀ school, ā€œextremely bigoted in matters of religion.ā€⁵²Ā However, the inhabitants of nearby Taliqan, just to the east of Qazwin, while declaring themselvesĀ SunnisAdherents of the majority branch of Islam, Sunnism; from the term sunnÄ« which means a follower of the sunna of the Prophet Muhammad., were known to incline to Ismaā€˜ilism.⁵³Ā In 781 AH/1378 CE,Ā SayyidĀ ā€˜Ali Kiyaā€™s commander of Ashkawar and Rudbar, Khwaja Ahmad, drove these refugees out of Qazwin. The Kushayji family then fled to Sultaniyya to join some of their co-religionists who had been ordered there by Tamerlane.⁵⁴Ā Just over a decade later, Tamerlaneā€™s troops were also to massacre theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ in Mazandaran,⁵⁵Ā and shortly afterwards those of Anjudan as well.⁵⁶

ā€˜Ali Kiya sought to enlist the support of Khudawand Muhammadā€™s forces in his efforts to dominate the region. He therefore sent an emissary bearing a message proclaiming, as Marā€˜ashi informs us, that ā€œthe Almighty Godā€™s gate of repentance and penitence was openā€ and that the way to it was for theĀ imamĀ ā€œto forsake the corrupt beliefsā€ of his forbears and ancestors.⁵⁷Ā The message is further supposed to have proclaimed:

Your folk have ruled over Daylamistan for a number of years, but due to abounding iniquity, the evil of impiety, and wicked beliefs, you have witnessed what you have witnessed [apparently a reference to the downturn of Ismaā€˜ili political fortunes]. If you turn away from the path reviled by the leaders of religion and companions of certainty, and adorn and bedeck yourself in the garb of faith and certitude, accepting our merciful counsel, we will show compassion and mercy to you and bestow the land of Daylamistan upon you.⁵⁸

The highly stylised account then has Khudawand Muhammad hastily beating a path to Lahijan whereĀ SayyidĀ ā€˜Ali Kiya enlists his support to overcome Kiya Malik Hazaraspi of Ashkawar with whom he had fallen out, despite the earlier allegiance of Kiya Malikā€™s ancestors. This was clearly the real purpose of his original communication. Marā€˜ashiā€™s narrative then has Khudawand Muhammad abjure the beliefs of his ancestors before the ā€œreligious scholars, jurists, and judgesā€ of the land.⁵⁹Ā There followed, in the year 776 AH/1374 CE, a mighty battle in which the forces of Kiya Malik were routed by the combined efforts of Khudawand Muhammad andĀ SayyidĀ ā€˜Ali Kiyaā€™s brother,Ā SayyidĀ MahdiĀ Kiya. Kiya Malik fled and took refuge atĀ Alamut.⁶⁰

However, rather than assigning Daylaman to Khudawand Muhammad for his support as had been promised,Ā SayyidĀ ā€˜Ali Kiya double-crossed him, instead entrusting this area to his own brother,Ā MahdiĀ Kiya.⁶¹Ā Realising he had been deceived, Khudawand Muhammad stole away by night toĀ Alamut, where he formed an alliance with the defeated Kiya Malik. In turn, Kiya Malik promised thatĀ AlamutĀ would be entrusted to theĀ imamĀ if he helped him to regain Ashkawar. As Marā€˜ashi narrates, upon seeing Khudawand Muhammad, theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ ofĀ AlamutĀ and Lamasar immediately rallied about him, joined the forces of Kiya Malik, and converged on Ashkawar. The combined forces inflicted heavy losses on the Gilani army ofĀ SayyidĀ Mahdi, whose dead and wounded totalled close to two thousand, while many others were taken prisoner by theĀ Ismaā€˜ilis.⁶²Ā SayyidĀ MahdiĀ Kiya was himself taken captive and sent to the court of the Jalayirid ruler of Azarbayjan, ā€˜Iraq and Kurdistan, Sultan Uways (r. 757-76 AH/1356-74 CE), whose dynasty had been one of the successors of the Mongol Ilkhanids in Persia.⁶³Ā An accompanying letter written by Kiya Malik stated that a group ofĀ rafidis had made common cause withĀ SayyidĀ MahdiĀ Kiya to subjugate Daylamistan and ā€˜Iraq, and hence he was being sent to the court.⁶⁴

Mahdi-Kiya remained incarcerated for a period of a year and six months, during which time, oddly enough, his brother made no attempt to have him released. It was only with the intercession of TajĀ al-DinĀ Amuli, one of the Hasanid ZaydiĀ sayyids of Timjan, and the proffering of numerous gifts that he was freed.⁶⁵Ā When appealing to Sultan Uways, TajĀ al-DinĀ explained that Kiya Malik was in cahoots with theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ ofĀ AlamutĀ (³¾²¹±ō²¹³ó¾±»å²¹-¾±Ģż“”±ō²¹³¾³Ü³Ł). Apparently the sultan required no further explanation. Even away in Tabriz, he seems to have been well aware of the continued existence of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ inĀ DaylamĀ and their survival of the Mongol depredations.

Soon after his brother was released, ā€˜Ali Kiya set out to displace Kiya Malik from Ashkawar once again. Kiya Malik was bested in the ensuing struggle and fled toĀ Alamut, where Khudawand Muhammad wanted nothing to do with him. He thus took refuge with Tamerlane. Meanwhile, the army of ā€˜Ali Kiya, which had pursued Kiya Malik right up toĀ Alamut, decided to besiege the fort. Khudawand Muhammad refused to capitulate. However, dwindling resources forced him to surrender the castle. He was granted safe conduct and also made his way to the camp of the Turkic conqueror.⁶⁶

ā€˜Ali Kiya wrote a letter to Tamerlane about the collusion of Kiya Malik and the Ismaā€˜iliĀ imamIn general usage, a leader of prayers or religious leader. The Shi’i restrict the term to their spiritual leaders descended from ŹæAlÄ« b. AbÄ« į¹¬Älib and the Prophet’s daughter, Fatima., prevailing upon him to take the appropriate measures. Upon receipt of this letter, the ruler sent Kiya Malik to Sawa, while Khudawand Muhammad was sent to confinement in Sultaniyya. Marā€˜ashi writes that the imamā€™s descendants continued to reside there until his own days, that is to say, until the late fifteenth century.⁶⁷

ā€˜Ali Kiyaā€™s death in 791 AH/1389 CE allowed Kiya Malik Hazaraspi to return to Daylaman from Sawa. There he received help from the locals to regainĀ AlamutĀ and Lamasar from theĀ AmirĀ Kiyaā€™iĀ sayyids.⁶⁸Ā He was, however, murdered by his own grandson, Kiya JalalĀ al-Din, who then succeeded him and who, we are informed, was hated by the Daylamites. Amidst this confusion, Khudawand Muhammad reappeared in the area, and theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ of the region, who apparently resided atĀ Alamut, gave the fortress to him. However, this was soon lost once again to Malik Kayumarth b. Bisutun, one of the Gawbara rulers of Rustamdar.⁶⁹

Later, the fortress was taken over by ā€˜Ali Kiyaā€™s son, Radi Kiya (d. 829 AH/1426 CE). This ruler perpetrated such massacres inĀ DaylamĀ that in the year 819 AH/1416 CE, in the words of Marā€˜ashi, ā€œthe waters of the White River (Safidrud) turned red with the blood of those killed.ā€⁷⁰Ā Among those done away with were many Ismaā€˜ili leaders, including some descendants of the Ismaā€˜iliĀ ImamĀ Khudawand ā€˜Alaā€™ alĀ DinĀ Muhammad. However, it seems that even this terrible massacre did not completely end Ismaā€˜ili activities in the area. While it would appear that the Ismaā€˜ili imams now abandoned the region, perhaps in favour of Anjudan, there is epigraphic evidence of continued Ismaā€˜ili activity in the area of Gilan. The tombstone of the Zaydi ruler of Lahijan, Muhammad Kar Kiya b.Ā SayyidĀ Nasr Kiya, dated 883 AH/1478 CE boasts that for forty years he battled against the innovations of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ (bidā€˜a mulhidiyya).⁷¹

In hisĀ Taā€™rikh-i Mazandaran, written in 1044 AH/1634 CE,Ā MullaĀ ShaykhĀ ā€˜Ali Gilani reports Ismaā€˜ili activities in the region as late as the end of the tenth/sixteenth century, that is to say even into Safawid times. Above, we have mentioned that Khudawand Muhammad had lostĀ AlamutĀ to Malik Kayumarth b. Bisutun, one of the Gawbara rulers of Rustamdar. When this ruler died in 857 AH/1453 CE, his territories were divided between his two sons, Kawus and Iskandar, the former ruling fromĀ NurĀ and the latter from Kujur. In 957 AH/1567 CE, Sultan Muhammad b. Jahangir, a Nizari Ismaili, succeeded his father to the leadership of the Iskandari line. Gilani expresses his distaste for this ruler, but reports that he was tremendously popular amongst his subjects. With the help of his adoring citizenry, he spread his creed throughout Rustamdar and established his suzerainty overĀ NurĀ and other areas of Mazandaran, even as far as Sari. When his eldest son Jahangir succeeded him in 998 AH/1589 CE, he continued his fatherā€™s religious policies. The south Caspian region could not remain free from Safawid hegemony for long, however, and after Shah ā€˜Abbas I subjugated much of the area in 1000 AH/1591 CE,Jahangir hastened to his court. Shortly after returning to Rustamdar, he was captured by a force under the command of the shahā€™s local lieutenant, sent to Qazwin, and executed there in 1006 AH/1597 CE.⁷²Ā This is the last we hear of Ismaā€˜ili political activities in the area. Some faint whisperings of the possibility of the communityā€™s continued habitation in this region, however, are found in a verse of the Ismaā€˜ili poet, Khaki Khurasani, who flourished in the first half of the seventeenth century, which refersĀ diyar al-marzĀ and Mazandaran.⁷³Ā This single allusion may represent the last vestige of Ismaā€˜ilism in the south Caspian region.

After Alamutā€™s capitulation to the Mongols, while the community had continued its activities in the area for an extended period, and tenuously and sporadically tried to reassert its control over the fort,⁷⁴Ā repeated reversals of fortune eventually led to its disappearance from the area. Command over all the fortresses formerly under Ismaā€˜ili suzerainty eventually passed into the hands of theĀ AmirĀ Kiyaā€™iĀ sayyids who used them as prisons until the Safawid conquest.75

An interesting question arises here about the identity of Khudawand Muhammad, who played such a central role in rallying theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ of the area. As mentioned above, Marā€˜ashi records that people in Daylaman, Rudbar, Padiz, Kushayjan, and some of the regions of Ashkawar owed their allegiance to this figure, a descendant of theĀ imamĀ ā€˜Alaā€™Ā al-DinĀ ā€œMulhidā€. This lineage, Marā€˜ashiā€™s description, and the title ā€œKhudawandā€ all indicate that he was considered theĀ imamĀ by his followers. The confusion arises because of the existence of evidence, first brought to light in a seminal article by Ivanow published in 1938, indicating the possibility that the NizariĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ split into two sects in the fourteenth century, the followers of Qasim Shah and the followers of Muhammad Shah.⁷⁶Ā Further evidence from Muhammad Shahi sources was later provided by the Syrian scholar ā€˜Arif Tamir in his ā€œFuruā€˜ al-shajarat al Ismaā€˜iliyyaā€⁷⁷Ģż²¹²Ō»åĢżal-Imama fi al-Islam.⁷⁸

While a discussion of the split is beyond the scope of this study, it should be mentioned that scholars have cautiously identified Khudawand Muhammmad with Muhammad Shah b. Muā€™min Shah (d. 807 AH/1404 CE) of the Muhammad Shahi line, on the basis that there was no contemporaryĀ imamĀ of the Qasim Shahi line with the name Muhammad.⁷⁹Ā However, new evidence in a work entitledĀ Haft Nukta, associated with the Qasim ShahiĀ ImamĀ Islam Shah, may suggest a different identification.⁸⁰Ā While the Muhammad Shahi line is never explicitly mentioned in this work, there is an allusion to rivalry in the family. This source specifies that the authorā€™s rival had influence in four areas, Badakhshan, the fort of Zafar, Egypt and Narjawan.Ā DaylamĀ is not mentioned at all, and we may therefore assume that it remained loyal to the imams of the Qasim Shahi line. This would significantly reduce the possibility of the earlier identification of Khudawand Muhammad. Given that the first of the Qasim Shahi imams named Islam Shah was also known as Ahmad,⁸¹Ā and that the names Ahmad and Muhammad are often interchangeable (as in the case of the Prophet himself), it is possible to suggest cautiously that Khudawand Muhammad may be identifiable withĀ ImamĀ Islam Shah b. Qasim Shah. In view of the fact that the Nizari tradition of the Indian Subcontinent, which is discussed below, identifies the residence ofĀ ImamĀ Islam Shah asĀ Alamut, this is conceivable. As far as we can tell with the limited information available to us, there is no parallel tradition among the Muhammad Shahis of Syria identifying a place of residence for theĀ imamĀ Muhammad Shah b. Muā€™min Shah. In the absence of further information, though, the question of Khudawand Muhammadā€™s identity must remain open.

The material outlined above clearly indicates that theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ continued their activities in the south Caspian region, perhaps sporadically, through the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This hypothesis finds further support in sources from bothĀ KhurasanĀ and India.

Testimony of the ±·²¹²õ²¹ā€™i³ó-i Shah-Rukhi

Our most important source for theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ of Quhistan after the Mongol invasions is the ±·²¹²õ²¹ā€™i³ó al-Muluk orĀ ±·²¹²õ²¹ā€™i³ó-i ShahrukhiĀ by a fourteenth/fifteenth-century author and inveterate enemy of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ by the name of Jalali Qaā€™ini, a resident of Harat. The work is contained in a hitherto unpublished manuscript in Vienna, and its contents regarding theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ are only accessible to us through the writings of Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall and Delia Cortese, both of whom were able to consult the original.⁸²

It appears that the last of the great Ilkhanids, Abu Saā€˜id Bahadur Khan (d. 735 AH/1335 CE), was concerned that much of the province remained dedicated to the tenets of Ismaā€˜ilism. This is certainly a possibility. Just decades earlier, recalling the ubiquity of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ in the area, Juzjani opprobriously dubbed Quhistan,Ā Mulhidistan, ā€œthe land of the (Ismaā€˜ili) heretics.ā€⁸³Ā Indeed, in his verses, the Ismaā€˜ili poet Nizari Quhistani rails against those who would call him aĀ mulhid:

If I am a heretic, then where is this ā€œMuslim?ā€ Who is he?!

And again:

Why do you say ā€œhereticā€ to one who has established his faith with a hundred proofs from theĀ ²Ļ³Ü°łā€™a²ŌĀ and the Hadith?

When you understand he who attains the perfectĀ ³¾²¹ā€˜r¾±“Ś²¹Ā [gnosis], then by knowing him, you will confess your own ignorance.⁸⁵

In concert with Shah ā€˜Ali Sijistani, the lieutenant of Quhistan, the Ilkhanid ruler sent a mission to the area to effect a mass conversion to Sunni Islam in 718 AH/1324 CE. At the head of the mission was the authorā€™s grandfather, a certainĀ ShaykhĀ ImadĀ al-DinĀ Bukhari, a distinguished jurist who had fledĀ BukharaĀ for Quhistan when that city was destroyed. ā€˜ImadĀ al-DinĀ was accompanied by his two sons, HusamĀ al-DinĀ and NajmĀ al-DinĀ Muhammad, as well as four other learned men. The details of this expedition were related to our author by his father, NajmĀ al-Din, whose presence on the mission makes this testimony very valuable. The efforts of the group were directed primarily at Qaā€™in, said to be the chief seat of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilis. Apparently the groupā€™s efforts bore fruit. When Tamerlaneā€™s son and successor, Sultan Shah Rukh (r. 807-50 AH/1405-47 CE), sent Jalali to the province to snuff out Ismaā€˜ilism there many decades later, he found that Sunnism had made inroads already. The ā€˜ulama were said to be zealousĀ SunnisĀ who were accused of rafd andĀ ilhadĀ if they showed any weakness. However, while the lords of Junabad and perhaps some of the Mutasayyid lords of Siyawahan (but ā€œonly God knows whether they were free from rafd or notā€) appeared to be pureĀ Sunnis, all the other lords of Quhistan were charged with Ismaā€˜ilism. If these figures were indeedĀ Ismaā€˜ilis, they must have been practicing dissimulation (taqiyyaPrecautionary dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs, especially in time of persecution or danger, a practice especially adopted by the Shi’i Muslims.) in order to avoid the purges. Jalali notes thatĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ occupied important positions in the political administration (diwan), thereby seeking to avert the persecution of their coreligionists. According to our author, with the exception of most of the princes of Tabas and Zir-i Kuh, the remaining princes of Quhistan were possibly leaning towards rafd andĀ ilhad, i.e., towards the Ismaā€˜ili faith. Pleased, Jalali writes that Farā€˜an, Tijarar, Makhzafa, and Saā€™ir were free of the taint of Ismaā€˜ilism.

Most noteworthy for our purposes, though, our author writes that some of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ returned toĀ AlamutĀ after the death ofĀ ImamĀ RuknĀ al-DinĀ Khwarshah. Yet more significant, Jalali states that even in his own time theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ of Quhistan would send their religious dues (wajibat) toĀ Alamut, a practice that had existed since the time of Hasan Sabbah. There can be no reason for thisĀ modus operandiĀ other than the continued existence of theĀ »å²¹ā€˜w²¹Ā structure, if not the imamā€™s own residence, in that region. Jalaliā€™s testimony inspires confidence as his investigation was quite thorough. In the space of eighteen months⁸⁶Ā he travelled the length and breadth of Quhistan on his mission.

Testimony of the Daā€˜wa Literature of the Indian Subcontinent

Further evidence of continued Ismaili activity in the region ofĀ AlamutĀ comes to us in the form of what are sometimes called ā€œunintentionalā€ historical sources-that is, sources that were not composed with the express intention of recording history but which nevertheless may serve a historical purpose, particularly where writings with an expressly historical intent are wanting. With the destruction of the Ismaā€˜ili state atĀ AlamutĀ and the devastation of Iranian lands by the Mongols, literary activity among the Ismailis was stymied. As would be expected under the circumstances, no chronicles of Ismaā€˜ili activities written by members of the community are known to have been composed in this volatile period, despite a tradition of historical writing in Fatimid andĀ AlamutĀ times.⁸⁷

While the Mongol onslaught decimated the Iranian regions, the Indian subcontinent was largely spared these depredations. Accordingly, we find testimony in the Ismaā€˜ili literature of the subcontinent as to the continuation ofĀ »å²¹ā€˜w²¹Ā activities in the area and, most notably for our purposes, to continued connections withĀ Alamut.⁸⁸Ā Hitherto, however, there has been no thorough study of the textual transmission of this literature, which goes by the nameĀ Ginan, derived from a Sanskrit word meaning gnosis. As the name suggests, the subject matter of this corpus is often esoteric, with a predominance of didactic, mythic, and allegorical motifs. Historical references, while they certainly exist, may sometimes be understood symbolically. Furthermore, the texts have suffered from a long period of transmission, both oral and written, occasionally resulting in anachronisms. While we can be certain that at least a few manuscripts dating back to the sixteenth century survived until recent times,⁸⁹Ā the oldest manuscript currently preserved in an institutional collection dates to 1736.⁹⁰Ā Bearing these factors in mind, however, as it has survived, the Ismaā€˜ili literature of the subcontinent perhaps preserves memories of this most obscure period of history.

The ancient mausoleum of the Ismaā€˜ili savant,Ā PirĀ Shams ofĀ MultanA major city in the province of Sind (today in Pakistan) where the seat of a Fatimid principality was founded in around 958., which likely dates to the thirteenth century, witnesses the communityā€™s presence in the region at the time of the Mongol invasions.⁹¹Ā Traditional accounts, preserved both in theĀ GinansĀ as well as in later, non-Ismaā€˜ili sources, maintain that the son and grandson ofĀ PirĀ Shams,Ā PirĀ NasirĀ al-Din, andĀ PirĀ ShihabĀ al-DinĀ (or SahibĀ al-Din, as his name often appears) respectively, assumed the leadership of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ in the subcontinent from the late thirteenth to the mid-fourteenth century.⁹²Ģż°Õ³ó±šĢż³Ņ¾±²Ō²¹²Ō²õĢżconfirm that religious dues continued to be submitted to theĀ imamĀ in this period and that propagation activities were conducted in secret.⁹³Ā Procedural details provided in these accounts give us greater reason for confidence in the testimony. Of the sum collected, twenty percent was for local use, while the remaining eighty percent was dispatched to theĀ imamĀ who, we are informed in theĀ ³Ņ¾±²Ō²¹²Ō¾±³¦Ģżaccount, resided in a fortress by the name of ā€œMorā€. Juzjani informs us that prior to the Mongol invasions theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ were in possession of seventy forts in Quhistan and thirty-five in theĀ AlamutĀ region.⁹⁴Ā Whether this particular fort was one of these is difficult to ascertain. Regardless, according to thisĀ ³Ņ¾±²Ō²¹²Ō¾±³¦Ģżtestimony, emissaries, known asĀ rahis, travelled from Uch to Mor to convey the funds to theĀ imam, who was in concealment (alop). Such a system of delivering religious dues is presumed in theĀ Pandiyat-i JawanmardiĀ of the fifteenth-centuryĀ imamĀ Mustansir biā€™llah.⁹⁵Ā Similarly, the sixteenth-century Ismaā€˜ili author, Muhammad Rida b. Sultan Husayn, known as Khayrkhwah Harati, also refers to the comings and goings of Ismaā€˜ili dignitaries from various places, including India, to see theĀ imamĀ as well as to submit religious dues.⁹⁶

A striking feature of the literature attributed to the Indian Ismaā€˜ili leadership in this period is the candour with which it speaks of the imamā€™s continued residence inĀ Daylam, or even the fort ofĀ AlamutĀ itself. A work attributed toĀ PirĀ SahibĀ al-DinĀ that alternates between addressing the disciples and theĀ imamĀ states:

Come hither! O assembly of vassals
That the King may fulfil your desires

We are sinful, paupers, slaves
O King! Succour us

In serving your court, no other comes to sight

The four aeons have run their course
O chivalrous ones
Perform deeds of virtue

Brother, build a raft of truth
Believer, steady your heart

For in the land ofĀ Daylam
The Great King, my Lord has descended

O King, the earthā€™s nine continents are your vassalry

You are our lord, theĀ Mahdi
O Lord Islam Shah, the granter of boons

Be pleased, O greatĀ Mahdi
O King, bestow on the faithful salvation, deliverance and your beatific vision

How blessed is the region ofĀ Alamut
Where you have established your physical residence!⁹⁷

Most remarkably,Ā AlamutĀ orĀ DaylamĀ are mentioned in no less than twelve of the compositions attributed to Shihab al-Dinā€™s son and successor,Ā PirĀ SadrĀ al-Din.⁹⁸Ā Under the able leadership of this fourteenth century luminary, perhaps the most prolific of the Ismaā€˜ili authors in the region at this time,⁹⁹Ā the community in the subcontinent experienced something of a renaissance. He was a contemporary of theĀ imamĀ Islam Shah whose name is often mentioned in his compositions.¹⁰⁰

While we have mentioned the need for a proper study of the textual transmission of theĀ ³Ņ¾±²Ō²¹²Ō¾±³¦Ģżcorpus, and the attendant necessity for prudence in deriving historical data from it until such a study is completed, there is remarkable consistency in the testimony of theĀ ³Ņ¾±²Ō²¹²Ō²õĢżin this particular instance. Not only do we have repeated reference in theĀ ³Ņ¾±²Ō²¹²Ō²õĢżofĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-DinĀ toĀ DaylamĀ as the residence of theĀ imamĀ Islam Shah, but association of the residence of theĀ imamĀ with this locale completely disappears in the compositions attributed to the successors of thisĀ Pir. There is not a singleĀ ³Ņ¾±²Ō²¹²Ō¾±³¦Ģżcomposition attributed to any figure who lived afterĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-DinĀ that mentionsĀ AlamutĀ orĀ DaylamĀ as the current residence of the Ismaā€˜iliĀ imamĀ in any of the over six hundred works consulted.¹⁰¹

While this concentration of references to the residence of theĀ imamĀ atĀ AlamutĀ orĀ DaylamĀ in the works attributed toĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-Din, to the exclusion of works attributed to later authors, is in itself compelling evidence to argue for the authenticity of the traditional attribution of authorship, the argument does not rely on this ascription. There is a consensus among scholars that in the event that particular compositions are incorrectly ascribed to their purported authors, the provenance of these compositions must, in all events, be later than that attributed to them, and hence after the Mongol invasions. This is fairly compelling evidence that at some time after the Mongol invasions, an Ismaā€˜iliĀ imam, almost certainly one of those named Islam Shah, again took up residence inĀ Daylam.

The fact that no author afterĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-DinĀ mentionsĀ AlamutĀ as the imamsā€™ residence strongly suggests that the imams must have moved their base at some point during his lifetime. That the imamā€™s residence was in theĀ AlamutĀ region at the time when theĀ imamĀ Islam Shah succeeded his father,Ā ImamĀ Qasim Shah, is implicit in the SindhiĀ GinanĀ shahake hek man anhi sirevo, in which the audience is assured thatĀ ImamĀ Islam Shah, the light (nur) ofĀ ImamĀ ā€˜Ali, is none other thanĀ ImamĀ Qasim Shah himself, established at the fort ofĀ Alamut.¹⁰²Ā This kind of statement would most likely have been made at the outset ofĀ ImamĀ Islam Shahā€™s reign.

One of the most striking facts that emerges from a reading ofĀ PirĀ Sadr al-Dinā€™s compositions is that he himself made a pilgrimage to the Imamā€™s residence atĀ Alamut. This is suggested in the following emotive verses:

Blessed, blessed is this day
For we have attained the Supreme Lord
Effaced are the sins and misdeeds of the four cosmic ages
Gather in the assembly of love with the True Guide
Gather in the assembly of hearts withĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-Din
The Savior of the hundred and twenty million soulsā€™¹⁰³
Forsake this deceitful world
Cross the vast ocean of the deceptive world
With the Name of theĀ Imam
Work deeds of righteousness in the world

TheĀ imamĀ has descended in the garb of a human being¹⁰⁴
At the fort ofĀ Alamut, the capital of the land ofĀ Daylam

I scaled towering mountains and negotiated treacherous passes
Now I await the Light of the True Guide

How base are lofty trees without leaves
How the human soul wanders lost without gnosis of the Guide.¹⁰⁵

The reference to scaling the difficult mountain passes ofĀ DaylamĀ is redolent of the arduous journey that would have confronted believers making the trek to see theĀ imamĀ from far-off places. That it wasĀ ImamĀ Islam Shah whomĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-DinĀ met is expressed elsewhere:

We received the lord Islam Shah
Who bestowed on us the mysteries of faith
We recognised him in his indescribable form
And he fulfilled all our desires.¹⁰⁶

Yet another composition mentions the authorā€™s departure from Alamut:

Brothers,Ā PirĀ SadrĀ al-Din, the true guide, departed from the fort ofĀ Alamut
The capital of the land ofĀ Daylam.¹⁰⁷

Extremely noteworthy is an exultant Sindhi composition that suggests that proselytisation was once again set afoot from Alamut:

The Imamā€™s herald travels throughout the world
Blessings be upon theĀ Imam, theĀ PirĀ and the community
For theĀ ImamĀ has appeared in the fortress ofĀ Alamut

Brother, we are perpetually blissful
By God, he has arrived, the community enjoys its fortune
Hail the advent of the Lord ā€˜Ali in the West!

Recognise the Supreme Man, Lord of Light
Friends, know theĀ PirĀ to be he
Who has led you to the recognition of the Lord of Twelve Splendours¹⁰⁸

Serve none other than that very Lord, my brother
Friend, never doubt in this
Hail the advent of the Lord
As glorious as the risen sun!¹⁰⁹

Conclusion

Upon examination of the evidence, it becomes immediately apparent that even after the Mongol onslaught, Ismaā€˜ili activity continued in the south Caspian region.

Juwayniā€™s omission of any reference to the destruction of Baghdad and the murder of the SunniĀ caliphIn Arabic khalÄ«fa, the head of the Muslim community. See caliphate., and his making the subjugation of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ ofĀ AlamutĀ the climax of his narrative of the Mongol conquests had definite political motives. The historian wished to celebrate the great service his pagan patron had rendered to the Islamic world by destroying this ā€œcommunity of infidels.ā€ He could scarcely dwell on the depredations visited upon the rest of the Muslim world by the Mongols, and certainly not the destruction of the SunniĀ caliphateThe Muslim political institution or state centred around the caliph, which came to an end, historically, in 1924 with the disappearance of the Ottoman Empire.. He thus had to overstate the iniquities and the political significance of this minority group, emphasising how the Seljuqs and others had failed to subdue them. He also had to exaggerate the extent of their defeat and stress their absolute and complete extermination. Anything less than a total annihilation would have been seen as failure on the part of his patron. As all future Persian historians drew on Juwayniā€™s testimony for their narratives of the Ismaā€˜ili community, they accepted his conclusions.

However, we know that after their initial subjugation in 654 AH/1256 CE theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ attempted several times to recapture the fortress ofĀ Alamut, and were often successful. Within five years of the fall of Girdkuh, the son of theĀ imamĀ RuknĀ al-DinĀ Khwarshah had already managed to rally theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ of the area and retake their chief fortress. However, the blows they had sustained at the hands of the Mongols had seriously undermined their strength, and it was soon lost once again. The Mongols, though, did not maintain a strong presence in the area, and it is likely that theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ resided there unmolested until Uljaytu Khan entered Gilan with his army in 706 AH/1307 CE. However, once again, this attack was short-lived.

After the departure of these forces,Ā DaylamĀ and the surrounding areas likely reverted to their semi independent status. Certainly, after the death of the last great Mongol Ilkhan, Abu Saā€˜id, in 735 AH/1335 CE, there was no strong central rule or government in the region. This gave the remainingĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ a respite from the ravages of the previous decades. At this time, the great mountainous districts between Persian ā€˜Iraq and Gilan were controlled by independent governors. We are informed by contemporary accounts that much of the region remained dedicated to Ismailism in this period. By 770 AH/1368-69 CE, the whole of the Daylaman seems once again to have come under the Ismaili rule of a certain Kiya SayfĀ al-DinĀ Kushayji. However, he did not openly proclaim his identity until provoked by a Zaydi rival,Ā SayyidĀ ā€˜Ali Kiya.

SayyidĀ ā€˜Ali Kiya extended his control over the region, ousting this Ismaā€˜ili leader. Nevertheless, the population in Daylaman, Rudbar, Padiz, Kushayjan and Ashkawar remained Ismaā€˜ili and was dedicated to anĀ imamĀ by the name of Khudawand Muhammad. This Khudawand Muhammad was intricately involved with the political struggles of the area and managed to reoccupyĀ AlamutĀ for a spell. At this time a certain TajĀ al-DinĀ Amuli was able to discuss theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ ofĀ AlamutĀ (³¾²¹±ō²¹³ó¾±»å²¹-¾±Ģż“”±ō²¹³¾³Ü³Ł) with the Jalayirid ruler, Sultan Uways (r. 757-76 AH/1356-74 CE) without having to explain who they were. Clearly the continued presence of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ in their ancestral centre was known even at the court of Tabriz. ThatĀ Alamut, or at least the region ofĀ Daylam, remained an important centre of the Ismaā€˜ili community in this period is testified to by Khurasani and Indian sources. These make it clear that after Hulagu conquered the region, theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ returned and religious dues continued to be delivered to this area. There is even testimony, albeit from sources whose history of transmission has yet to be fully studied, that theĀ imamĀ Islam Shah lived at the fort ofĀ AlamutĀ itself.

Though theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ continued to inhabitĀ AlamutĀ and the south Caspian for much of this period, their former political power had been broken. No longer were their activities the stuff of fantastic legends woven by Christians passing through the region as they had been at the time of the Crusades, nor was their history of particular interest to Muslim chroniclers. Henceforth, at least politically, theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ were of minor, regional significance. Soon enough, in 819 AH/1416 CE, they were subject to yet another massacre in which ā€œthe waters of the White River (Safidrud) turned red with the blood of those killed.ā€¹¹⁰Ā Among those done away with were many Ismaā€˜ili leaders, including some descendants of the Ismaā€˜iliĀ imamĀ Khudawand ā€˜Alaā€™Ā al-DinĀ Muhammad. It must have been around this time, about one and a half centuries afterĀ AlamutĀ first capitulated to the Mongols, that theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ gave up all hopes of regaining the fortress as their centre. While Ismaā€˜ili activity continued in this region, the imams appear to have moved away to safer, more politically quiescent surroundings, ushering in an era that has been dubbed the ā€œAnjudan Periodā€ of Ismaā€˜ili history.

Footnotes

1. ā€˜AlaĀ al-DinĀ ā€˜Ata-Malik “³³Ü·É²¹²ā²Ō¾±,ĢżTaā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, ed. Mirza Muhammad Qazwini, 3 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1912-37), 3: 275; trans. John A. Boyle,Ā The History of the World Conqueror, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1958), 2: 723.
2. Hyacinth Louis Rabino, ā€œRulers of Gilan,ā€Ā Journal of the Royal Asiatic SocietyĀ (1920): 293-94. Juwayni himself was suitably impressed by the fortifications of the castle, and describes the immense difficulty of destroying it,Ā Taā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 272-73; tr. Boyle, 2: 720-21.
3. For a discussion of Juwayniā€™s possible motivations for this unusual treatment, see David ²Ń“Ē°ł²µ²¹²Ō,ĢżThe MongolsĀ (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), and Carole Hillenbrand, ā€œThe Power Struggle between the Saljuqs and theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ ofĀ Alamut, 487-518/1094-1124: TheĀ SaljuqĀ Perspective,ā€ inĀ Mediaeval Ismaā€˜ili History and Thought, ed. Farhad Daftary (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996), 214.
4. ā€˜IzzĀ al-DinĀ Ibn al-Athir,Ā Taā€™rikh al-KamilĀ (Cairo, 1303/1885), 10: 110-13. Cf., for example, “³³Ü·É²¹²ā²Ō¾±,ĢżTaā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 194; tr. Boyle, 670. Hamd Allah Mustawfi Qazwini, Nuzhal al-Qulub, ed. Guy Le Strange,Ā The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat al-QulubĀ (Leiden-London, 1915-19), 61, trans., 66; Muhammad b. Khwandshah Mirkhwand, Rawdat al-Safaā€™, 10 vols. (Tehran, 1338-39/1960), Am. Jourdain, ā€œHistoire de la dynastie des IsmaĆ©liens de Perse,ā€Ā Notices et Extraits des ManuscritsĀ 9 (1813): 208, trans. 154. Mirkhwand gives an alterative translation ofĀ AlamutĀ as ā€œthe eagleā€™s nestā€ (ashyana-yi ā€˜uqab), which is etymologically less convincing. Wladimir Ivanow felt that these medieval attempts were ā€œabsurdā€ and that it was impossible to reconstruct the etymology of a word from an unknown language. See Ivanow,Ā AlamutĀ and LamasarĀ (Bombay: The Ismaili Society, 1960), 1. Rashid al-Dinā€™s dating is different from the above, being based on the chronogram ofĀ Alamut, rather than the older version of the name. See RashidĀ al-DinĀ Fadl Allah Tabib,Ā Jamiā€˜ al-Tawarikh, ed. B. Karimi (Tehran, 1338/1959), 2: 697, tr. 2: 486.
5. ±õ²ŌĢżMĆ©moirs de lā€˜Institut Royal de FranceĀ 4 (1818): 1-84; trans. Azizeh Azodi, ā€œMemoir on the Dynasty of the Assassins and on the Etymology of their Name by Silvestre de Sacy,ā€ inĀ The Assassin Legends, ed. Farhad Daftary (London: I. B.Tauris, 1994), 182.
6. See, for example, his ā€œLes Dynasties du Mazandaran,ā€Ā Journal AsiatiqueĀ 228 (1936): 472-73, ā€œLes Dynasties locales du Gilan et duĀ Daylam,ā€Ā Journal AsiatiqueĀ 237 (1949): 315-18,Ā Les Provinces Caspiennes de la Perse: Le GuilanĀ (Paris, 1917), 281, 402-5, 409-10, and ā€œRulers of Gilan,ā€ 293-95.
7. Farhad Daftary,Ā The Ismaā€˜ilis: Their History and Doctrines, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990; in particular, 448-51.
8. ā€œIsmaā€˜iliyyan-i Iranā€ (M.A. thesis, Danishgah-i Firdawsi, 1371-72 S), esp. 193-237.
9. For example, MinhajĀ al-DinĀ ā€˜Uthman b. Siraj Juzjani,Ā Tabaqat-i Nasiri, ed. ā€˜Abd al-Hayy Habibi, 2nd ed. (Kabul: 1342-43/1963-64); trans. Henry G. Raverty,Ā The Tabakat-i-Nasiri: A General History of the Muhammadan Dynasties of AsiaĀ (London, 1881-99). Though he was an old man living safely in the DelhiĀ SultanateĀ when he wrote his book, he himself had witnessed the horrors of Chingiz Khanā€™s invasion forty years earlier.
10. Ibn al-Athir,Ā Taā€™rikh al-Kamil, 12: 358; translated in ā€œPrefaceā€ to RashidĀ al-DinĀ Fadl Allah Tabib, tr. Wheeler M. Thackston,Ā Jamiā€˜uā€™t-tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., 1998), xi.
11. ²Ń“Ē°ł²µ²¹²Ō,ĢżThe Mongols, 17-18.
12. In fact, Carole Hillenbrand suggests that Juwayni intentionally inflated the number of failedĀ SaljuqĀ forays against theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ in order to bring into relief the Mongol success. See Hillenbrand, ā€œThe Power Struggle between the Saljuqs and theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ ofĀ Alamut,ā€ 214.
13. See David Morgan, ā€œPersian Historians and the Mongols,ā€ inĀ Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and Islamic Worlds, ed. D. Morgan (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, Univ. of London, 1982), 114; David Ayalon, ā€œThe Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan: A Re-examination,ā€Ā Studia IslamicaĀ 33 (1971): 133.
14. µž°ł“Ē·É²Ō±š,ĢżA Literary History of Persia, 4 vols. (rpt. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1997), 2: 473.
15. This is the most generally credited account. See John Andrew Boyle, ā€œThe Death of the Last ā€˜Abbasid Caliph: A Contemporary Muslim Account,ā€Ā Journal of Semitic StudiesĀ 6 (1961): 160. Another equally uncomplimentary, though perhaps less creditable version, is that of Marco Polo and others, which has him shut up in a tower surrounded by his treasures and starved to death. See Aldo Ricci, trans.,Ā The Travels of Marco PoloĀ (New York: Vi king Press, 1931), 27.
16. The following passage illustrates this penchant for drama:
    In that breeding-ground of heresy in the Rudbar ofĀ AlamutĀ the home of the wicked adherents of Hasan-i Sabbah and the vile followers of the practice ofĀ ibahaĢż°Ś²õ¾±³¦,Ģżibaha], there remains not one stone of the foundation upon another. And in that flourishing abode of innovations (²ś¾±»åā€˜a³Ł) the Artist of Eternity Past wrote with the pen of violence upon the portico of each one[ā€™s dwelling] the verse: ā€˜These their houses are empty ruins [²Ļ³Ü°łā€™a²ŌMuslims believe that the Holy ²Ļ³Ü°łā€™a²Ō contains divine revelations to the Prophet Muhammed received in Mecca and Medina over a period of 23 years in the early 7th century CE. More 27: 53].ā€™ And in the market-place of those wretchesā€™ kingdom theĀ muezzinĀ Destiny has uttered the cry of ā€˜Away with the wicked people!ā€™ [²Ļ³Ü°łā€™a²Ō 23:43]ā€ Their luckless womenfolk (haram u harim), like their empty religion, have been utterly destroyed. And the gold of those crazy, double-dealing counterfeiters which appeared to be unalloyed has proved to be base lead. Today, thanks to the glorious fortune of the World-Illuminating King, if an assassin (kard-zan) still lingers in a corner, he plies a womanā€™s trade; wherever there is aĀ »å²¹ā€˜iĀ there is an announcer of death; and everyĀ rafiqĢż°Ś²õ¾±³¦,Ģżrafiq] has become a thrall. The propagators of Ismaā€˜ilism have fallen victims to the swordsmen of Islam. TheirĀ maulanaĢż°Ś²õ¾±³¦,Ģżmaulana] to whom they addressed the words: ā€˜O god, our Protector (maulana),-dust in their mouths!-(and yet ā€˜the infidels have no protector [²Ļ³Ü°łā€™a²Ō 47:12]ā€™) has become the serf of bastards. Their wiseĀ Imam, nay their lord of this world, of whom they believed that ā€˜every day doth some new work employ him [²Ļ³Ü°łā€™a²Ō 55:29]ā€™, is fallen like game into the net of Predestination. Their governors (muhtasham) have lost their power and their rulers (kiya) their honour. The greatest among them have become as vile as dogs. Every commander of a fortress has been deemed fit for the gallows and every warden of a castle has forfeited his head and his mace. They have been degraded amongst mankind like the Jews and like the highways are level with the dust. God Almighty hath said: ā€˜Vileness and poverty were stamped upon them [²Ļ³Ü°łā€™a²Ō 13:25].ā€™ ā€˜These, a curse awaiteth them [²Ļ³Ü°łā€™a²Ō 2:58].ā€™ The kings of the Greeks and Franks, who turned pale for fear of these accursed ones, and paid them tribute, and were not ashamed of that ignominy, now enjoy sweet slumber. And all the inhabitants of the world, and in particular the Faithful, have been relieved of their evil machinations and unclean beliefs. Nay, the whole of mankind, high and low, noble and base, share in this rejoicing. And compared with these histories, that of Rustam the son of Dastan has become but an ancient fable. The perception of all ideas is through this manifest victory, and the light of the world-illuminating day is adorned thereby. ā€˜And the uttermost part of that impious people was cut off. All praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds! [²Ļ³Ü°łā€™a²Ō 6:45]ā€™.
    “³³Ü·É²¹²ā²Ō¾±,ĢżTaā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 139-42, tr. 2: 639-40.
17. He appends this document to one of the chapters in ibid., 3: 114, tr. 2: 622.
18. “³³Ü·É²¹²ā²Ō¾±,ĢżTaā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 274, tr. 2: 722. This surprisingly warm reception was also noted by Bernard Lewis,Ā The Assassins: A Radical Sect in IslamĀ (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967), 93.
19. “³³Ü·É²¹²ā²Ō¾±,ĢżTaā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 276, tr. 2: 723.
20. “³³Ü·É²¹²ā²Ō¾±,ĢżTaā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3:277, tr. 2: 724-25.
21. Ibn Isfandiyar and anonymous continuator, cited by Marshall G. S. Hodgson,Ā The Order of AssassinsĀ (New York: AMS Press, 1980), 270.
22. Jamiā€˜ al-Tawarikh, 2: 695, 766, tr. 2: 485,3:535-56. See also Juzjani,Ā Tabaqat-i Nasiri, 2:186, tr. 2: 1206-11. Here he states that the garrison of Girdkuh, reduced to one or two hundred men, was still holding out against the Mongols in 658 AH/1260 CE, at the time he was writing. Also cited in Daftary,Ā °Õ³ó±šĢż±õ²õ³¾²¹ā€˜i±ō¾±²õ, 429, 698 n. 242. Daftary provides some of his own observations concerning the situation of Girdkuh.
23. µž°ł“Ē·É²Ō±š,ĢżLiterary History of Persia, 3:25.
24. Hamd Allah Mustawfi ²Ļ²¹³ś·É¾±²Ō¾±,ĢżTaā€™rikh-i Guzida, ed. ā€˜Abd al-Husayn Nawaā€™i (Tehran:Ā AmirĀ Kabir, 1362 S), 592; E. G. µž°ł“Ē·É²Ō±š,ĢżThe Taā€™rikh-i Guzida: or, ā€˜Select Historyā€™Ā (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1910-13), ed. 583, tr. 143. ā€œKhwarazmshahā€ in the manuscript used by Browne must be amended to ā€œKhwarshah.ā€ Ahmad b. JalalĀ al-DinĀ Muhammad Fasih Khwafi, Mujmal-i Fasihi, ed. Mahmud Farakh (Mashhad, 1340 S), 2: 344; L. Lockhart, ā€œAlamut,ā€ inĀ Encyclopaedia of IslamĀ (Leiden: Brill, 1999; rpt. CD-ROM ed.), 1: 352 mistakenly gives the date as 673. Cf. RashidĀ al-Din, ā€œBack on this front, as soon as Khwarshah was set on the road, his kith and kin, including men and women down to babes in cradles, were all put to death between Abhar and Qazwin,ā€™ with no trace remaining,ā€Ā Jamiā€˜ al Tawarikh, 2: 697, tr. 2: 486. Clearly, this must refer only to the family members who had accompanied him on the journey.
25. ā€œRulers of Gilan,ā€ 293-94. Juwayni himself was suitably impressed by the fortifications of the castle, and describes the immense difficulty of destroying it; seeĀ Taā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 272-73, tr. 2: 720-21.
26. Taā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 267, tr. 2: 717, emphasis added.
27. Taā€™rikh-i Jahangushay,Ā 3: 111, tr. 2: 620.
28. Jamiā€˜ al-Tawarikh, 2: 694, tr. 2: 484.
29. Taā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 264, tr. 2: 715. It is equally inexplicable how he was somehow able positively to identify as false a child whom even the imamā€™s most intimate associates thought to be his son.
30. This seems in keeping with the fact thatĀ ImamĀ RuknĀ al-DinĀ Khwarshah was also quite young at this time, his youth being mentioned in theĀ FathnamaĀ ofĀ Alamut. See ibid., 3: 116, 124, tr. 2: 624, 628.
31. Taā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 133, tr. 2: 634.
32. Taā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 267, tr. 2: 717, Jamiā€˜ al-Tawarikh, 2: 685, tr.2: 485.
33. Jamiā€˜ al-Tawarikh, 2: 685, tr. 2: 485.
34. Taā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 276, tr. 2: 723.
35. Taā€™rikh-i Jahangushay, 3: 134, tr. 2: 635.
36. See, e.g., ibid., 3: 124, tr. 2: 628.
37. ²Ļ²¹³ś·É¾±²Ō¾±,ĢżTaā€™rikh-i Guzida, 1: 583, 2: 143.
38. Hamd Allah Mustawfi,Ā Zafarnama, lithograph of British Library MS Or. 2833, 2 vols. (Tehran: Markaz-i nashr-i danishgahi-i Iran, 1999), 2: 1426; Ahmad-i Tabrizi,Ā Shahanshahnama, MS British Library Or. 2780, fol. 116ro, cited in Charles Melville, ā€œThe Ilkhan Oljeituā€™s Conquest of Gilan (1307): Rumour and Reality,ā€ inĀ The Mongol Empire and its Legacy, ed. Reuven Amitai-Preiss and David O. Morgan (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 84.
39. Melville, 117.
40. Jamiā€˜ al-Tawarikh, 2: 984, tr. 3: 676.
41. Melville, ā€œIlkhan Oljeituā€™s Conquest,ā€ 105.
42. Melville, ā€œIlkhan Oljeituā€™s Conquest,ā€ 105.
43. ā€˜Abd Allah b. Lutf ā€˜Ali al-Bihdadini Hafiz Abru,Ā Dhayl-i Jamiā€˜ al-TawarikhĀ (Tehran: 1317 S/1938), 73.
44. Cited in Melville, 105, 197 n. 122 from a manuscript of theĀ Dhayl-i Jamiā€˜ al-TawarikhĀ that contains sections not found in the edited version.
45. JamalĀ al-DinĀ Abu al-Qasim ā€˜Abd Allah b. ā€˜Ali Kashani,Ā Taā€™rikh-i Uljaytu, ed. M. Hambly (Tehran: 1348/ 1969), 67. Also cited in Melville, 105.
46. Boyle, ā€œDynastic and Political History of the Il-Khans,ā€ inĀ The Cambridge History of Iran, ed. Boyle (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1968), 5: 401.
47. Nuzhat al-Qulub, 60-61, tr. 65-67.
48. “ܲ¹³ó¾±°łĢż²¹±ō-¶Ł¾±²ŌĢż²Ń²¹°łā€˜a²õ³ó¾±,ĢżTaā€™rikh-i Tabaristan wa Ruyan wa Mazandaran, ed. Husayn Tasbihi (Tehran: 1361 S/[1983]), 147.
49. See Rabino, ā€œLes Dynasties locales du Gilan et duĀ Daylam,ā€ 314.
50. “ܲ¹³ó¾±°łĢż²¹±ō-¶Ł¾±²ŌĢż²Ń²¹°łā€˜a²õ³ó¾±,ĢżTaā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, ed. M. Sutuda (Tehran: 1347/1968), 67; Rabino, ā€œRulers of Gilanā€, 295.
51. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 67.
52. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 67.
53. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 65, tr. 70.
54. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 69-70; see also below.
55. ±·¾±³ś²¹³¾Ģż²¹±ō-¶Ł¾±²ŌĢż³§³ó²¹³¾¾±,ĢżZafarnama, ed. F. Tauer (Prague, 1937-50), 1: 168; SharafĀ al-DinĀ ā€˜Ali Yazdi,Ā Zafarnama, ed. M. ā€˜Abbasi (Tehran, 1336/1957), 1: 412; Mirkhwand,Ā Rawdat al-Safaā€™, 6: 207. This attack occurred in 794/1392, when NizamĀ al-DinĀ Shami was actually present; see ³§³ó²¹³¾¾±,ĢżZafarnama, 1: 128.
56. ³§³ó²¹³¾¾±,ĢżZafarnama, 1: 136; Yazdi,Ā Zafarnama, 1: 443-44; Mirkhwand,Ā Rawdat al-Safaā€™, 6: 211-12; GhiyathĀ al-DinĀ b. HumamĀ al-DinĀ Khwandamir, Habib al-Siyar, ed. W. M. Thackston,Ā ±į²¹²ś¾±²ś³Üā€™s-³§¾±²ā²¹°ł, vol. 3:Ā The Reign of the Mongol and the TurkĀ (Cambridge, Mass.: Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard Univ., 1994). With regard to theĀ Habib al-Siyar, reference should be made to the section quoted in Ibrahim Dihgan,Ā KarnamaĀ (n.p.: Chapkhana-i Musawi, 1345), 47-49, which includes passages that do not appear in Thackstonā€™s critical edition and translation. The attack on theĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ in Anjudan occurred just a year after the attack in Mazandaran.
57. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 54.
58. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 54.
59. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 55
60. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 56, 58
61. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 58
62. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 59
63. On this dynasty, see J. M. Smith, Jr., ā€œDjalayir, Djalayiridā€, inĀ Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2: 401
64. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 59.
65. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 60-61
66. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 63-64
67. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 65. Maryam Muā€˜izzi, while also forwarding this interpretation, correctly comments that the meaning of the phraseĀ wa awlad-i anĀ jamaā€˜atĀ aknun niz injaĀ and [this readsĀ anjaĀ and in Sutudaā€™s edition] is equivocal. See her ā€œIsmaā€˜iliyyan-i Iranā€, 229 n. 28.
68. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 89, 121
69. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 123. Cf. Daftary,Ā °Õ³ó±šĢż±õ²õ³¾²¹ā€˜i±ō¾±²õ, 450. Also note the observations in Muā€˜izzi, ā€œIsmaā€˜iliyyan-i Iran,ā€ 199, on the possibility of there having been more than one Khudawand Muhammad
70. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 129.
71. Manuchihr Sutuda,Ā Az Astara ta Astarabad, 10 vols. (Tehran, 1366/1987), 2: 343, 346-48; Hyacinth Louis Rabino,Ā Mazandaran and AstarabadĀ (London: Luzac, 1928), 60.
72. MullaĀ ShaykhĀ ā€˜Ali Gilani,Ā Taā€™rikh-i Mazandaran, ed. M. Sutuda (Tehran, 1352/1973), 88-89, 99-100. Maryam Muā€˜izzi, while admitting the possibility that these rulers were Ismaā€˜ili, expresses some reservations as they are referred to simply asĀ malahidaĀ in our sources: ā€œIsmaā€˜iliyyan-i Iran,ā€ 212-14. While this derogatory epithet does indeed have broader applications, it is most commonly used of theĀ Ismaā€˜ilis, particularly in the South Caspian region, though certainly elsewhere as well. See, for example, W. Madelung, ā€œMulhid,ā€ inĀ Encyclopaedia of Islam, 7: 546. Gilaniā€™s statement in reference to Sultan Muhammad b. Jahangir, that ā€œhe renewed the influence of the deviation (ilhad) of [the Ismaā€˜iliĀ ImamĀ Hasan] ā€˜Ala Dhikrihi al-Salam in the land of Rustamdar,ā€ however, is fairly explicit about the religious leanings of this ruler.
73. ImamĀ Quli Khaki Khurasani,Ā Diwan, ed. Wladimir Ivanow,Ā An Abbreviated Version of theĀ DiwanĀ of Khaki KhorasaniĀ (Bombay, 1933), 69.
74. Cf. W. Madelung, ā€œIsmaā€˜illiya,ā€ inĀ Encyclopaedia of Islam, 4: 198
75. “ܲ¹³ó¾±°łĢż²¹±ō-¶Ł¾±²ŌĢż²Ń²¹°łā€˜a²õ³ó¾±,ĢżTaā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, ed. Hyacinth Louis Rabino (Rasht, 1330/1912), 86-87, 216.
76. ā€œA Forgotten Branch of the Ismailis,ā€Ā Journal of the Royal Asiatic SocietyĢż(1938).
77. ā€˜Arif Tamir, ā€œFuruā€˜ al-shajarat al-Ismaā€˜iliyya,ā€Ā al-MashriqĀ 51 (1957): 581-612.
78. ā€˜Arif Tamir,Ā al-Imama fi al-IslamĀ (Beirut, n.d. [1964?]), 157-58, 169-78, 192ff.
79. See, for example, Daftary,Ā °Õ³ó±šĢż±õ²õ³¾²¹ā€˜i±ō¾±²õ, 449; Delia Cortese, ā€œEschatology and Power in Mediaeval Persian Ismailismā€ (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1993), 204.
80. This work is not mentioned in Ivanowā€™sĀ A Guide to Ismaā€˜ili LiteratureĀ (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1933), orĀ Ismaā€˜ili Literature: A Bibliographical Survey, 2nd ed. (Tehran: Ismaili Society, 1963), or Ismail K. Poonawala,Ā Bibliography of Ismaā€˜ili LiteratureĀ (Malibu, Calif.: Undena Publications, 1977). Details may be found in Shafique N. Virani, ā€œSeekers of Union: °Õ³ó±šĢż±õ²õ³¾²¹ā€˜i±ō¾±²õĀ from the Mongol Debacle to the Eve of the Safavid Revolutionā€ (Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 2001), 103-4. The text itself contains no explicit indication of authorship; however, the compiler of the volume in which it appears, Haji Qudrat Allah Beg, attributes it to ā€œMawlana Islam Shah.ā€ SeeĀ ImamĀ Islam Shah, ā€œHaft Nukta,ā€ inĀ Kitab-i Mustatab-i Haft Bab-iĀ Daā€˜iĀ Abu Ishaq, ed..Haji Qudrat Allah Beg,Ā Kitab-i Mustatab-i HaftĀ Bab, pp. 115-24. Its attribution to anĀ imamĀ is also suggested by an introduction to the work that appears in Persian MS 43 at the Institute of Ismaili Studies. This preamble refers to the work as theĀ °ģ²¹±ō²¹³¾-¾±Ģż²õ³ó²¹°ł¾±“Ś, ā€œthe noble words,ā€ an expression that one would scarcely expect to be used of an author of little consequence. It further prevails upon the believers to carry the spiritual message of the aphorisms in their hearts and not to divulge their contents to the uninitiated. We can therefore provisionally accept the attribution to theĀ imamĀ Islam Shah, acknowledging, of course, that there were three Qasim Shahi imams known by this title.
81. See, e.g.,Ā PirĀ ShihabĀ al-DinĀ Shah al-Husayni,Ā Kitab-i Khitabat-i ā€˜aliyaĀ (Tehran, 1963), 45.
82. “³²¹±ō²¹±ō¾±ā€™sĢż±·²¹²õ²¹ā€™i³ó al-MulukĀ is item 163 in the Imperial Library of Vienna. My repeated attempts to secure a copy of this manuscript from the Imperial Library have been unsuccessful. A summary of the contents of the whole work is given in Gustav Flugel,Ā Die Arabischen, Persischen und Turkischen Handschriften der Kaiserlich ā€“koniglichen Hofbibliothek zu WienĀ (Vienna, 1867), 3: 289-91. See alsoĀ Codices Arabicos, Persicos, Turcicos, Bibliothecae Caesareo-Regio-Palatinae Vindobonensis, ed. Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall (Vindobonae, 1820), n. 163Ā ±·²¹²õ²¹ā€™i³ó-i Shah Rukhi, Persian MS 1858 (cf. Flugel), folio 302a. Reference to theĀ ±·²¹²õ²¹ā€™i³óĀ here is through von Hammer Purgstall,Ā The History of the AssassinsĀ (London, 1835), 204-10 and Cortese, ā€œEschatology and Power,ā€ 195-97. Corteseā€™s treatment of it is much fuller than that of von Hammer-Purgstall. She gives the work an alternate title,Ā ±·²¹²õ²¹ā€™i³ó-i Shahrukhi. Some cautionary notes on von Hammer-Purgstallā€™s scholarship are sounded in Daftary,Ā The Ismaā€™ilis, 20-21, and Lewis,Ā The Assassins, 12-13. Regarding anachronisms in the reporting of the text, see Virani, ā€œSeekers of Union,ā€ 114-15. Recently, much light has been shed on the author of this treatise by Maria Eva Subtelny and Anas B. Khalidov; see Subtelny, ā€œThe Sunni Revival under Shah-Rukh and its Promoters: A Study of the Connection between Ideology and Higher Learning in Timurid Iran,ā€ inĀ Proceedings of the 27th Meeting of Haneda Memorial Hall Symposium on Central Asia and Iran: August 30, 1993 (Kyoto: Institute of Inner Asian Studies, Kyoto University, 1994), 16-21; and Subtelny and Khalidov, ā€œThe Curriculum of Islamic Higher Learning in Timurid Iran in the Light of the Sunni Revival under Shah-Rukh,ā€Ā JAOSĀ 115 (1995): 217-22.
83. Juzjaniā€™s testimony is not to be taken lightly. In 1224, he himself was sent to the Ismaā€˜ili ruler Abu al-Fath ShihabĀ al-DinĀ Mansur on an embassy via Qaā€™in. Despite his dim view of the community in general, he seems to have been quite taken by this Abu al-Fath, and praises him lavishly for his sagacity and wisdom, as well as for his courtesy to visitors, poor wayfarers and refugees fleeing from the Mongols. See Charles E. Bosworth, ā€œ°Õ³ó±šĢż±õ²õ³¾²¹ā€˜i±ō¾±²õĀ of Quhistan and the Maliks of Nimruz orĀ SistanA province in eastern Iran.,ā€ inĀ Mediaeval Ismaā€˜ili History and Thought, ed. Farhad Daftary (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996), 226.
84. Nizari Quhistani,Ā Diwan-i Hakim Nizari Quhistani, ed. Mazahir Musaffa (Tehran: Intisharat-i ā€˜ilmi, 1371), 1:84
85. Translated in Faquir M. Hunzai,Ā Shimmering Light: An Anthology of Ismaili PoetryĀ (London: I. B. Tauris, 1996), 87. Maā€˜rifa is glossed (144 n. 72) as ā€œa technical expression used primarily inĀ SufismĀ for spiritual knowledge derived through an intuitive and illuminative cognition of the divine. In Ismaili thought, the term also signifies the spiritual recognition of oneā€™s own soul which is tantamount to the recognition of God.ā€
86. Corteseā€™s account differs from von Hammer-Purgstallā€™s testimony, making Qaā€™iniā€™s investigation last eleven months. See Cortese, ā€œEschatology and Power,ā€ 196.
87. In this regard, see Farhad Daftary, ā€œPersian Historiography of the Early Nizari Ismaā€˜ilisā€,Ā Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian StudiesĀ 30 (1992): 91-97.
88. The best introduction to the history of Ismaā€˜ilism in the subcontinent, known asĀ Satpanth, remains Azim Nanji,Ā The Nizari Ismaā€˜ili Tradition in the Indo-Pakistan SubcontinentĀ (Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books, 1978). The later history should be supplemented with Shafique N. Virani, ā€œThe Voice of Truth: Life and Works ofĀ SayyidĀ NurĀ Muhammad Shah, A 15th/16th Century Ismaili Mysticā€ (M.A. thesis, McGill University, 1995). The earliest period has been studied in Tazim R. Kassam,Ā Songs of Wisdom and Circles of DanceĀ (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1995).
89. In this connection, see Nanji,Ā The Nizari Ismaā€˜ili Tradition, 10-11.
90. See Zawahir Moir, ā€œA Catalogue of theĀ KhojkiĀ MSS in the Library of the Ismaili Instituteā€ (unpublished typescript, 1985), 1.
91. This unique artifact reflects the architectural features of the equally ancient tombs of Bahaā€™uā€™d-Din Zakariyya and Shadna Shahid. See Kamil Khan Mumtaz,Ā Architecture in PakistanĀ (Singapore: Concept Media, 1985), 42-43.
92. See Nanji,Ā The Nizari Ismaā€˜ili Tradition, 70. A late lithograph source by ā€˜Isan Shah andĀ SayyidĀ Muhammad Muluk Shah,Ā Taā€™rikh-i Gulzar-i ShamsĀ (n.p., nd.), gives the death of NasirĀ al-DinĀ as 682/1283, p. 366, and the death of ShihabĀ al-DinĀ as 750/1349, p. 377.
93. NurĀ Muhammad Shah,Ā Sat Varani MotiĀ ([Mumbai ?]: [Mukhi Lalajibhai Devraj ?], n.d.), cantos 190-97,Ā PirĀ NasirĀ al-Din, ā€œHun balahari tame shaha raja,ā€ inĀ 100 Ginanani Chopadi, vol. 2 (Mumbai: The Recreation Club Institute Press, 1993 VS/1936), no. 66;Ā SayyidĀ ImamĀ Shah,Ā JanatpuriĀ (n.p.: n.d.), v. 83.
94. Tabaqat-i Nasiri, 518, tr. 1205-6. Bernard Lewis feels this number to be rather high;Ā The Assassins, 94.
95. ImamĀ Mustansir biā€™llah [= Gharib Mirza?],Ā Pandiyat-i Jawanmardi, ed. Wladimir Ivanow,Ā Pandiyat-i JawanmardiĀ or ā€˜Advices of Manlinessā€ (Leiden: E. J.Brill, 1953), 2, 11, 17, 21, 34, 60, 63-64, 70, 78, 82, 88-89, tr. 2, 8, 11, 13, 21, 37, 39, 43-44, 48-49, 51, 54-55. Regarding this text, see also Virani, ā€œSeekers of Union,ā€ 139-44.
96. Such references are found scattered in Muhammad Rida b. Sultan Husayn Khayrkhwah Harati,Ā Risala, ed. Wladimir Ivanow,Ā Tasnifat-i Khayrkhwah HaratiĀ (Tehran: Ismaili Society, 1961); see, e.g., 23, 39, 55, 60-61; also Muhammad Rida b. Sultan Husayn Khayrkhwah Harati,Ā ²Ļ¾±³Łā€˜a³Ł, ed. Wladimir Ivanow,Ā Tasnifat-i Khayrkhwah HaratiĀ (Tehran: Ismaili Society, 1961), 105-7.
97. PirĀ SahibĀ al-Din, ā€œAo gatiure bhandhe,ā€ inĀ 100 Ginanani Chopadi, vol. 3 (Mumbai: The Recreation Club Institute Press, 1991 VS/1935), no. 74, vv. 1-10. The translation ofĀ turaĀ in verse 5 as ā€œraftā€ is tentative. This word is not found in any of the various dictionaries consulted. The tentative translation is based on the semblance of this word to the wordĀ tulahariĀ in verse 8 of theĀ garabiĀ ofĀ PirĀ Shams, ā€œBhulo bhulo te bhul bhamarado re lol,ā€ inĀ GinaneĀ SharifĀ Bhag Pahelo: 105Ā Ginan. (Mumbai: Ismailia Association for India, 1978) in which it seems to mean a boatman or an oarsman, and on verse 7 ofĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-Din, ā€œBhair bhanga ma tado,ā€ inĀ 100 Ginanani Chopadi, 3: no.81. All these words appear to be based on the Sanskrit wordĀ tari, meaning any seafaring vessel
98. These areĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-Din, ā€œSansar sagar madhe van apana satagure noriyanre,ā€ inĀ 100 Ginanani Chopadi, vol. 1 (Mumbai: The Recreation Club Institute Press, 1990 VS/1934), no. 68; ā€œShahake hek man anhi sirevo,ā€ inĀ 102 Ginanaji: Chopadi, vol. 4 (Mumbai: Mukhi: Lalji: Bhai: Devaraj: dhi: khoja: sindhi: chhapakhanun, 1968 VS/ [19121), no. 48; ā€œJuga jug shaha avataraj dharea [a.k.a. Sen Akhado],ā€ inĀ 100 Ginanani Chopadi, 2: no. 26; ā€œAshaji sacho tun alakh nirinjan agam agochar,ā€ inĀ 102 Ginanaji: Chopadi, 4: no. 4; ā€œYara anant kirodie vadhaiunā€™ inĀ 102 Ginanaji: Chopadi, 4: no. 29; ā€œPayalore nam sahebajo vado lije,ā€ inĀ 102 Ginanaji: Chopadi, 4: no. 82; ā€œDhan dhan ajano dadalore ame harivar payaji,ā€ inĀ 100 Ginanani Chopadi, vol. 5 (Mumbai: The Recreation Club Institute Press, 1990 VS/1934), no. 42; ā€œThar thar moman bhai koi koi raheseji,ā€ inĀ 100 Ginanani Chopadi, 5: no. 50; ā€œDes delama me shaha hari avatareo,ā€ inĀ 100 Ginanani ChopadiĀ vol. 6 (Mumbai: The Recreation Club Institute Press, 1989 VS/1933), no. 29. To these may be addedĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-Din, ā€œAj sabi mahadin bhujo bhev,ā€ inĀ Mahan Ismaili SantĀ PirĀ Sadaradin Rachit Ginano no Sangrah 1Ā (Mumbai: Ismailia Association for Bharat, 1969), which is not recorded in the six-volumeĀ KhojkiĀ set, but may be found in this Gujarati recension.
99. Hundreds of Ginans attributed toĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-DinĀ are found both in published form as well as in Ismaā€˜ili manuscripts. See Ali Sultaan Ali Asani,Ā The Harvard Collection of Ismaili Literature in Indic Languages: A De scriptive Catalog and Finding AidĀ (Boston: G.K. Hall, 1992); Moir, ā€œA Catalogue of theĀ KhojkiĀ MSSā€; and Zawahir Nooraly, ā€œCatalogue ofĀ KhojkiĀ Manuscripts in the Collection of the Ismailia Association for Pakistan (draft copy)ā€ (Karachi: Ismailia Association for Pakistan, 1971
100. The shajara discovered by Ivanow gives his dates as 1290-1380; see ā€œThe Sect ofĀ ImamĀ Shah in Gujrat,ā€Ā Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic SocietyĀ n.s. 9 (1933): 34. Both the Gulzar-i Shams and Pirzada Sayyad Sadaruddin Dargahvala,Ā °Õ²¹±¹²¹°ł¾±°ģ³ó-±šĢż±Ź¾±°ł, 2 vols. (Navsari, Gujarat: Muslim Gujarat Press, 1914, 1935) gives the dates 650/1252-770/1368. It is interesting that Ivanow does not mention any dates from the Manazil al-Aqtab in connection with thisĀ Pir. OnĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-Din, see Nanji,Ā The Nizari Ismaā€˜ili Tradition, 72-77.
101. This compelling consistency is important to note in light of the theory advanced in Ali Sultaan Ali Asani, ā€œThe Ismaā€˜ili ginans: Reflections on Authority and Authorship,ā€ inĀ Mediaeval Ismaā€˜ili History and Thought, 265-80. See also Azim Nanji, ā€œTheĀ GinanĀ Tradition among the Nizari Ismaā€˜ilis: Its Value as a Source of their Historyā€ , inĀ Actes du XXIXe CongrĆØs international des OrientalistesĀ (Paris: Lā€™AsiathĆØque, 1975), 3: 143-46., AllĀ GinansĀ in the six volume set published in Mukhi Laljibhai Devraj were consulted. The class ofĀ GinansĀ known asĀ granths, however, was not used for the present study and should be examined as it may contain valuable information. There is a reference toĀ DaylamĀ in theĀ GinanĀ ofĀ SayyidĀ ImamĀ Shah, ā€œVela pohoti ne ved vicharo,ā€ inĀ 100 Ginanani Chopadi, 1: no.14, v.7, by the later Ismaā€˜iliĀ »å²¹ā€˜i,Ā SayyidĀ ImamĀ Shah, but this is merely a statement that in the fourth aeon, theĀ ImamĀ appeared inĀ Daylam, not that he was residing there in the authorā€™s time. AnotherĀ Ginan,Ā SayyidĀ Muhammad Shah, ā€œSacho tun moro sanhia,ā€ inĀ 102 Ginanaji: Chopadi, 4: no. 67, v. 8 asserts that theĀ imamĀ has established his throne in the land ofĀ Daylam. However we do not know the dates of thisĀ SayyidĀ Muhammad Shah. The fact that this composition is in Sindhi largely precludes the possibility of his being any of the figures named Muhammad Shah who lived afterĀ ImamĀ Shah and are known to have composedĀ Ginans, as their compositions are very influenced by Gujarati and Hindustani.
102. SadrĀ al-Din, ā€œShahake hek man anhi sirevo,ā€ inĀ 102 Ginanaji: Chopadi, 4: no. 48, vv. 15-16.
103. The expression bar gur refers toĀ PirĀ SadrĀ al-DinĀ as the leader of twelve crore (a sum of 120,000,000) souls who are to be saved in the last age of the world. On this concept, see Christopher Shackle and Zawahir Moir,Ā Ismaili Hymns from South Asia: An Introduction to the GinansĀ (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, Univ. of London, 1992), 89, 169. A portion of this explanation is corrected in Virani, ā€œThe Voice of Truth,ā€ 130-31 n. 82.
104. The wordĀ shah, translated here asĀ imam, is one of the most commonly occurring terms in theĀ GinansĀ used to refer to theĀ imam. Gulshan Khakee notes thatĀ shahĀ is the most frequently used noun in the tenth chapter ofĀ SayyidĀ ImamĀ Shahā€™sĀ Das Avatar, occurring an astounding 147 times. See Gulshan Khakee, ā€œThe Dasa Avatara of the Satpanthi Ismailis and theĀ ImamĀ Shahis of Indo-Pakistanā€ (Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1972), 14. Similarly, the wordĀ shahĀ is one of the most common appellations for theĀ imamĀ in theĀ diwanĀ of Khaki Khurasani (and, we may extrapolate, for Persian-speakingĀ Ismaā€˜ilisĀ in the mid-1600s). See Ivanowā€™sĀ An Abbreviated Version of theĀ DiwanĀ of Khaki KhorasaniĀ (Bombay, 1933), 10.
105. ā€œDhan dhan ajano dadalore ame harivar payaji,ā€ 5: no. 42, vv. 1-5.
106. ā€œSirie salamashaha amane maliya,ā€ inĀ 100 Ginanani Chopadi,Ā 5: no. 10, v. 1. The second line may also be translated as ā€œWho bestowed the kingdom of religion upon us.ā€
107. ā€œAlamot gadh patan delam des bhaire,ā€ inĀ 100 Gindnani Chopadi, 2: no. 39, v. 1.
108. The twelve splendours (bar kala) refer to the sun, perhaps because it passes through twelve signs of the zodiac on its celestial rounds. It is contrasted with the moon of sixteen splendours (sol kala), which has sixteen digits and is representative of theĀ Pir. The term, admittedly a difficult and infrequently usedĀ GinanicĀ concept, is mistranslated in Shackle and Moir, Ismaili Hymns from South Asia, 89, 169, where the notion ofĀ barkalaĀ is confused with that ofĀ bar karod, mentioned above, which refers to the twelve crore (120,000,000) disciples who are initiated into the mysteries of the Satpanth in the last age of the world.
109. ā€œJugame phire shahaji muneriā€, inĀ 102 Ginanaji: Chopadi, 4: no. 3, vv. 1-4.
110. Taā€™rikh-i Gilan wa Daylamistan, 129.