Yahya bin Aktham the Beginning of the Shia Dynasty

The silly historians all tell the same story about the beginning of the Shi’ah dynasty.

Abu ‘Abdallah al-Muhtasib went among the Kutamah urging acceptance of Muhammad’s family (the ‘Alids).

He cared for ‘Ubaydallah al-Mahdi and his son, Abu1-Qasim.

Therefore, these 2 feared for their lives and fled the East, the seat of the caliphate.

They passed through Egypt and left Alexandria disguised as merchants. Isa a-Nawshari, the governor of Egypt and Alexandria, was informed of them.

He sent cavalry troops to pursue them. But when their pursuers reached them, they did not recognize them because of their attire and disguise.

They escaped into the Maghrib.

Al-Mu’tadid ordered the following to search everywhere for them:

• the Aghlabid rulers of Ifriqiyah in al-Qayrawan
• the Midrarid rulers of Sijilmasah

Ilyasa’, the Midrarid lord of Sijilmasah, learned about their hiding place in his country and detained them, in order to please the caliph. This was before the Shi’ah victory over the Aghlabids in al-Qayrawan.

Thereafter, the ‘Ubaydid-Fatimid propaganda spread successfully throughout Ifriqiyah and the Maghrib. It reached:

• the Yemen
• Alexandria and the rest of Egypt
• Syria
• the Hijaz.

The ‘Ubaydid-Fatimids shared the realm of Islam equally with the Abbasids.

They almost succeeded in penetrating the home country of the ‘Abbasids and in taking their place as rulers.

Their propaganda in Baghdad and the ‘Iraq met with success through the amir al-Basasiri, one of the Daylam clients who had gained control of the ‘Abbasid caliphs.

This happened as the result of a quarrel between al-Basasiri and the non-Arab amirs.

For a whole year, the ‘Ubaydid-Fatimids were mentioned in the Friday prayer from the pulpits of Baghdad.

The ‘Abbasids were continually bothered by the ‘UbaydidFatimid power and preponderance.

The Umayyad rulers beyond the sea in Spain expressed their annoyance with them and threatened war against them.

How could all this have befallen a fraudulent claimant to the rulership, who was (moreover) considered a liar?

One should compare (this account with) the history of the Qarmatian. His genealogy was, in fact, fraudulent.

The ‘Ubaydid-Fatimid dynasty held possession where Abraham had prayed, the home of the Prophet and the place where he was buried, the place where the pilgrims stand and where the angels descended to bring the revelation to Muhammad.

Then, their rule came to an end.

During all that time, their partisans showed them the greatest devotion and love and firmly believed in their descent from the imam Ismail, the son of Ja’far as-Sadiq.

Even after the dynasty had gone and its influence had disappeared, people still came forward to press the claims of the sect. They proclaimed the names of young children, descendants of the ‘Ubaydid-Fatimids, whom they believed entitled to the caliphate.

A sectarian does not manipulate his own affairs, nor sow confusion within his own sect, nor act as a liar where his own beliefs are concerned.

It is strange that Judge Abu Bakr al-Baqillani'122 the great speculative theologian, was inclined to credit this unacceptable view (as to the spuriousness of the ‘Ubaydid-Fatimid genealogy), and upheld this weak opinion.

If the reason for his attitude was the heretical and extremist Shi’ism of (the ‘Ubaydid-Fatimids, it would not be valid, for his denial of their ‘Alid descent) does not invalidate 123 (the objectionable character of) their sectarian beliefs, nor would establishment of their (‘Alid) descent be of any help to them before God in the question of their unbelief.

God said to Noah concerning his sons:

“He does not belong to your family. It is an improper action. So do not ask me regarding that of which you have no knowledge.“124 Muhammad exhorted Fatimah in these words= “O Fatimah, act (as you wish). I shall be of no help to you before God.”

When a man comes to know a problem or to be certain about a matter, he must openly state (his knowledge or his certainty). “God speaks the truth. He leads (men into) the right way.”

Those people (the ‘Ubaydid-Fatimids) were constantly on the move because of the suspicions various governments had concerning them. They were kept under observation by the tyrants, because their partisans were numerous and their propaganda had spread far and wide. Time after time they had to leave the places where they had settled. Their men, therefore, took refuge in hiding, and their (identity) was hardly known, as (the poet) says:

If you would ask the days what my name is, they would not know, And where I am, they would not know where I am.

This went so far that Muhammad, the son of the imam Isma’il, the ancestor of ‘Ubaydallah al-Mahdi, was called “the Concealed (Imam).” 127 His partisans called him by that name because they were agreed on the fact he was hiding out of fear of those who had them in their power.

The partisans of the ‘Abbasids made much use of this fact when they came out with their attack against the pedigree of (the ‘UbaydidFatimids). They tried to ingratiate themselves with the weak (‘Abbasid) caliphs by professing the erroneous opinion that (the ‘Alid descent of the ‘Ubaydid-Fatimids was spurious).

It pleased the ‘Abbasid clients and the amirs who were in charge of military operations against the enemies of the (‘Abbasids). It helped them and the government to make up for their inability to resist and repel the Kutimah Berbers, the partisans and propagandists 128 of the ‘Ubaydid(-Fatimids), who had taken Syria, Egypt, and the Hijaz away from (the ‘Abbasids).

The judges in Baghdad eventually prepared an official statement denying the ‘Alid origin (of the ‘Ubaydid-Fatimids). 129 The statement was witnessed by a number of prominent men, among them the Sharif ar-Radi 130 and his brother al-Murtada, 131 and Ibn al-Bathawi.

Among the religious scholars (who also witnessed the document) were Abu Hamid al-Isfarayini, 133 al-Quduri, 134 as-Saymari 135 Ibn al-Akfani, 1 36 al-Abiwardi, 137the Shi’ah jurist Abu ‘Abdallah b. an-Nu’man,138 and other prominent Muslims in Baghdad. The event took place one memorable 139 day in the year 1011 in the time of al-Qadir.

The testimony (of these witnesses) was based upon hearsay, on what people in Baghdad generally believed. Most of them were partisans of the ‘Abbasids who attacked the ‘Alid origin (of the ‘UbaydidFatimids).

The historians reported the information as they had heard it. They handed it down to us just as they remembered it. However, the truth lies behind it. Al-Mu’tadid’s 140 letter concerning ‘Ubaydallah (addressed) to the Aghlabid in al-Qayrawan and the Midrarid in Sijilmasah, testifies most truthfully to the correctness of the (‘Alid) origin of the (‘Ubaydid-Fatimids), and proves it most clearly. AlMu’tadid (as a very close relative) was better qualified than anyone else to speak about the genealogy of the Prophet’s house. 141