Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Akrogiali

Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 24 feb 2006 02:26:13

Al Hakam, born 996; died 1020, Sultan of Egypt was the son of Aziz Sultan
of Egypt and A Greek born lady by the Christian name MARIA.

Is that true? and is there any additional information.

best wishes

George

Gjest

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 feb 2006 23:35:02

Akrogiali escreveu:
Al Hakam, born 996; died 1020, Sultan of Egypt was the son of Aziz Sultan
of Egypt and A Greek born lady by the Christian name MARIA.

Is that true? and is there any additional information.

best wishes

George

Al Hakam was a caliph of Cordoba in al-Andalus (south of Spain and
Portugal). You mean al-Hakim bi Amr-Allah, a son of al-Aziz, both
fatimid caliphs (sultan is turquish) of Egypt; he was also the 16th
ismaili Imam. I know nothing of his wife but I woud be surprised if a)
there was only one, and b) she was anything but muslim.
It is true that he had christians and jews serving at high level posts,
even as vizir (prime-minister) but had the habit of having them killed
an substituted regularly (surely more than one hundred high dignitaries
during his reign). Maybe because, besides being mad and (according to
sunni sources) thinking himself a deity, he was a ismaili shia ruling
over a majority of sunnis.
He might have had a slave or even a concubine greek, christian or jew
but if that was recorded it is beyond my knowledge. A wife I do not
think probable.
Btw, is this another attempt to find a line to Muhammad, the Prophet?

Regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)

Akrogiali

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 25 feb 2006 00:03:00

Forget about Spain.
I have never seen the name as you presented it.

You mean al-Hakim bi Amr-Allah, a son of al-Aziz, both
fatimid caliphs (sultan is turquish) of Egypt;

I am after al-Hakim ibn al-Aziz.

I have never seen the word "bi" between names before, I assume it is an
error.
The connecting word is either "bint" meaning "the daughter of"; "ibn"
meaning "the son of".

The fact that Muslims married many times is well known;
However, it was common to name the name of the mother of the successor.
So, I assume the Greek lady Maria, was the mother of the Sultan that
followed al-Hakim who died young (24 years old).



<francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140820502.863078.50380@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Akrogiali escreveu:
Al Hakam, born 996; died 1020, Sultan of Egypt was the son of Aziz
Sultan
of Egypt and A Greek born lady by the Christian name MARIA.

Is that true? and is there any additional information.

best wishes

George

Al Hakam was a caliph of Cordoba in al-Andalus (south of Spain and
Portugal). he was also the 16th
ismaili Imam. I know nothing of his wife but I woud be surprised if a)
there was only one, and b) she was anything but muslim.
It is true that he had christians and jews serving at high level posts,
even as vizir (prime-minister) but had the habit of having them killed
an substituted regularly (surely more than one hundred high dignitaries
during his reign). Maybe because, besides being mad and (according to
sunni sources) thinking himself a deity, he was a ismaili shia ruling
over a majority of sunnis.
He might have had a slave or even a concubine greek, christian or jew
but if that was recorded it is beyond my knowledge. A wife I do not
think probable.
Btw, is this another attempt to find a line to Muhammad, the Prophet?

Regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)

Gjest

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 feb 2006 02:00:02

I have never seen the name as you presented it.
Yes I have noticed that. I have also noticed that you didn't try a

Google search (11.800 hits).

I am after al-Hakim ibn al-Aziz.
I doubt that you are after the Commander, son of Aziz.


I have never seen the word "bi" between names before
That makes two of us. But the guy's name was 'Ali Mansur or, just to be

respectfull Abu 'Ali Mansur; or, just to identify the father, Abu 'Ali
Mansur bin al-Aziz (bin being the same than ibn; arab as latin, german,
polish and other alien languages has declinations).
It also happens that the guy was a caliph (since he was 12 or something
like that) and caliphs (once again: not sultans) are known by titles,
not names; his title was al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, something like
"Commander for the will of God". The druzes call him "Commander for his
own will" what is curious because unwillingly he started the druze
religion.

So, I assume the Greek lady Maria, was the mother of the Sultan that followed al-Hakim who died young (24 years old).
Sorry, but he was followed by another caliph. Turks only took power

some centuries later.

Al-Hakim is always cited in any compilation of eccentric rulers because
of his edits and is recorded as the Mad Caliph.
A lot more is known about him and notably when he was 36 in 1021 his
vanishing. It seems that he went out for a ride, never to be seen
again; only his clothes and his horse remained.

I am no specialist in history but I was interested in al-Hakim after I
stayed in Lebanon and visited the Druze's area. But I have never heard
or read anything about wives and any mention to a christian would have
probably caught my eye.

Best regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)

Gjest

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 feb 2006 00:20:44

I want to apologise for beeing rude.

All I said for al-Hakim's wife is also true for his mother. Never saw
anything about her.
For al-Aziz or any other fatimid to take a christian wife was highly
improbable. The basis of their political power was the religious
leadership and to take an unfaithfull for wife would weaken that
leadership. And shias were a minority against sunnis; and among shias,
ismailis were a minority against twelvers. They would not take chances.


The religious legitimacy was so important that when the sunni abassid
caliph of Bagdad, Qadir was alarmed by the fatimid expansion in Syria
(Aleppo) and even Iraq (Kufa) he did not raise an army but produced a
document (the Bagdad's manifesto in year 1011) signed be sunni and
twelvers' religious leaders saying that the fatimids' ancestors were
jews and not from the Prophet's family. This was read in all mosques.

If al-Aziz had no other son from his wife or wives, any male son would
succeed even if the mother was a slave and possibly a christian but
that would have been un unusual event. Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah was so
called (the Commander by will of God) because his father died a short
time after his elder brother when he was eleven years old; so that
would have been God's will. If his mother was an unfaithfull - making
him a rather unprobable heir - that would have been recorded.

The way your source deals with dates, names and titles just proves that
it is not sound. My advice is to forget all about the Greek Maria.

Best regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)

Akrogiali

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 27 feb 2006 00:12:54

It also happens that the guy was a caliph (since he was 12 or something
like that) and caliphs (once again: not sultans) are known by titles,
not names; his title was al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, something like
"Commander for the will of God". The druzes call him "Commander for his
own will" what is curious because unwillingly he started the druze
religion.

I have the person above as: MANSUR EL-HAKIM BAMRILLAH (Bi-Amr Allah) was
King of Damascus (996-1021), King of Aleppo (1004-1021) and Caliph of Egypt.
He had a son: El-Zahir, Caliph of Egypt.

His father: NIZAR EL-AZIZ BILLAH (Bi-Allah) was King of Damascus 975-996 and
Caliph of Egypt.

I guess from what you are saying that the above are the persons I am after.
I did check Google under al-Hakam but without much success

George

<francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140829202.063160.202180@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I have never seen the name as you presented it.
Yes I have noticed that. I have also noticed that you didn't try a
Google search (11.800 hits).

I am after al-Hakim ibn al-Aziz.
I doubt that you are after the Commander, son of Aziz.

I have never seen the word "bi" between names before
That makes two of us. But the guy's name was 'Ali Mansur or, just to be
respectfull Abu 'Ali Mansur; or, just to identify the father, Abu 'Ali
Mansur bin al-Aziz (bin being the same than ibn; arab as latin, german,
polish and other alien languages has declinations).

So, I assume the Greek lady Maria, was the mother of the Sultan that
followed al-Hakim who died young (24 years old).
Sorry, but he was followed by another caliph. Turks only took power
some centuries later.

Al-Hakim is always cited in any compilation of eccentric rulers because
of his edits and is recorded as the Mad Caliph.
A lot more is known about him and notably when he was 36 in 1021 his
vanishing. It seems that he went out for a ride, never to be seen
again; only his clothes and his horse remained.

I am no specialist in history but I was interested in al-Hakim after I
stayed in Lebanon and visited the Druze's area. But I have never heard
or read anything about wives and any mention to a christian would have
probably caught my eye.

Best regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)

Gjest

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 feb 2006 03:19:11

I have just realised that your native language is not english (persons
for people). :-))

Yes, those are the people, the dates are better but the titles could be
improved.
Both were caliphs of Egypt but king is emir. Aleppo, in Syria was an
emirate. Al-Aziz tried several times to conquer Aleppo but with
uncertain results. In 1008, after the death of Lulu, his son Mansur was
challenged and became practically a Fatimid vassal but only in 1017
after Mansur was defeated, a fatimid governor was appointed by
al-Hakim. So the title of king of Aleppo in 1004 is dubious. I don't
know if al-Aziz and his son used the title of emir of Damascus but your
dates for *kings of Damascus* are correct for caliphs of Egypt.

Not being a specialist I have some knowledge of the descendence of
Muhammad to the caliphs of Egypt (a line not fully proved and denied by
sunnis) and to the emirs of Morocco, the idrissids; I also know
something about the ummayad and the abassid lines, the first from
Muhammad's 2nd greatgrandfather and the last from Muhammad's
grandfather. If you will let me know what you are running after, maybe
I can help.

Best regards,
Francisco

Akrogiali

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 28 feb 2006 05:07:11

All the books I checked and the Internet use the word KING, including
enzyclopaedias.
I guess they are all wrong

<francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141006751.546578.241020@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I have just realised that your native language is not english (persons
for people). :-))

Yes, those are the people, the dates are better but the titles could be
improved.
Both were caliphs of Egypt but king is emir. Aleppo, in Syria was an
emirate. Al-Aziz tried several times to conquer Aleppo but with
uncertain results. In 1008, after the death of Lulu, his son Mansur was
challenged and became practically a Fatimid vassal but only in 1017
after Mansur was defeated, a fatimid governor was appointed by
al-Hakim. So the title of king of Aleppo in 1004 is dubious. I don't
know if al-Aziz and his son used the title of emir of Damascus but your
dates for *kings of Damascus* are correct for caliphs of Egypt.

Not being a specialist I have some knowledge of the descendence of
Muhammad to the caliphs of Egypt (a line not fully proved and denied by
sunnis) and to the emirs of Morocco, the idrissids; I also know
something about the ummayad and the abassid lines, the first from
Muhammad's 2nd greatgrandfather and the last from Muhammad's
grandfather. If you will let me know what you are running after, maybe
I can help.

Best regards,
Francisco

Gjest

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 feb 2006 18:37:25

A paragraph frow Wikipedia:

«He was born in Egypt in 985 and successfully succeeded his father Abu
Mansur Nizar al-Aziz in 996 at the age of eleven in an initial
demonstration of the Fatimid dynasty's stability. Nevertheless, in his
long reign as caliph he struggled with the Qarmatiyya rulers of Bahrain
and extended Fatimid rule to the emirate of Aleppo. His diplomatic and
missionary vehicle was the Ismaili da'wa with its organizational power
center in Cairo. His most rigorous and consistent opponent was the
Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad, who were concerned to halt the influence
of Ismailism, culminating in the Baghdad Manifesto of 1011, which
claimed that the line Hakim represented did not legitimately descend
from Ali.»

Please note: "the emirate of Aleppo".

A link to the most complete information on fatimids:
http://www.ismaili.net/histoire/history ... ry543.html
ATTENTION: It is an ismaili's source. Some facts are not accepted by
sunnis and part of them not by twelvers shias.

.....................

Emir, sometimes written amir or ameer - you will find all forms in an
English dictionary - is the latin equivalent of 'rex', in English,
king. So it is not wrong to say king, but ...
.... 'comes' in latin is the equivalent of count and also of earl.
However, if one knows what is talking about, does not use "count of
Derby" nor "earl of Paris".
Damascus has been a kingdom - the Bible has several references to kings
of Damascus - an emirate, a caliphate, a province and probably other
things amongst them a small city under Byzantium.
Being a caliphate 'grosso modo' equivalent to an empire, under the
caliph a territory may be ruled by an emir or a governor (and others
less signifiant) as it was an emirate=kingdom or a province. Roughly
one century later, after the Crusades, kings applied to christian and
sultans to seljuks (of turquish origin). Emir always applied to muslims
so it is preferable to avoid confusions.

The net has lots of information and lots of garbage. Not speaking arab
and without access to primary sources or even good secundary sources,
the only possibility to separate information from garbage is a
valuation of context. If dates, titles and known historical facts are
correct, the rest *MAY* be correct; but if somebody is called king when
the place was ruled by a governor, or the dates of a caliph reign are
wrong even by one year when the exact date is known, the other
information should be discarded.

That´s why I called your attention to "king of Aleppo" when only a
governor was appointed 13 years later. But there are other
discrepancies: the caliphs of Egypt at the time of al-Hakim, then in
the peak of their power when their territories were larger than the
caliphate of Baghdad, did rule Aleppo and Damascus, but also Tunisia -
were they originate before conquer Egypt and found Cairo - and the
Maghreb (or Maghrib); it is not normal to identifie them as caliphs of
Egypt and kings of Aleppo and Damascus without mention their western
territories.

The way arab names and titles are spelled is not important and has no
special meaning. Arab has more vocals than english (or french or
german) and even the arabs pronounce them differently so the
"reproduction" of those sounds can be differently written if meant to
be read by a german a french or an english. And the whole may change if
the original source was arabic, greek, hebrew or turk.
But other things than the spelling are meaningfull: if you say
al-Mansur ibn al-Aziz it is acceptable but al-Hakim ibn al-Aziz is
wrong because the patronymic should not be (correctly) used with a
title as this last one shoud be enough as an identifier.

As I am definitely leaving this topic I will add some last information
as a bonus. After spending the best of 3 hours I did find a refence to
a controversy about al-Hakim's mother being a christian or a muslim;
only the reference, not the controversy, and the best probability is
that it was another sunni attempt to discredit him. Anyhow the source
was druze and as druzes believe he was a deity following a long
sequence of egyptian pharaohs, who was his mother was not relevant to
them.
Besides I found a good reference to an edict in wich he dispossess his
mother and sisters of their properties. If his mother and sisters had
signifiant properties, it means that his father al-Aziz was weak and
ruled his family with laxity (by muslim standards of the epoch; I am
stating a fact not issuing a moral judgement) but also means that his
mother should be a high ranking muslim.

I also found one of his wives name, Amina, mother of his successor
az-Zahir. As expected she was granddaughter of the Imam al-Muizz so an
ismaili of the highest rank.

Best regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)

Gjest

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 mar 2006 17:00:18

Persons is the plural of person. People is the singular of peoples.

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 04 mar 2006 22:30:10

In article <1141505311.815469.268540@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
amir_al_muminin@comcast.net wrote:

An ancestor of mine. His full name and title was Abu Ali al-Mansur
al-Hakim bi Amr'allah, Fatimid Caliph [996 - 1021] (Cairo, Egypt July
24, 985 - probably February 12, 1021 Egypt). Al-Hakim for short. His
wife and mother of his successor was his cousin, Amina "Ruqayya", a
daughter of Abdullah a son of Imam al Muizz. His physical description
is much the same as his father's tall with broad shoulders, fair
skin, sparkling blue eyes, and reddish blonde hair.

He was viewed negatively by Christians since he destroyed the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre, even though his mother was born and continuted in
the Orthodox Christian faith and she even helped in the rebuilding of
the church. His mother's name was Maria and she was the sister of two
important bishops, namely Orestes the Bishop of Jerusalem and Arsenius
the Bishop of Cairo.

This is fascinating. Could you cite published authorities for (1) the
identification of his mother as the sister of two bishops (presumably
Orthodox); and for (2) your line of descent from him? I suspect most
readers of this group, like me, have no experience with published
literature on medieval-to-modern descents within the Muslim world and
would be very interested to learn what sort of genealogical scholarship
is available, even if it is in Arabic.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Chris Bennett

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Chris Bennett » 04 mar 2006 23:00:11

From an Isma'ili website, http://www.csulb.edu/~dsteiger/fatimid.htm, an
article by Diane Stiegerwald:

The Caliph al-‘Azîz continued his father's policy of religious tolerance and
married a Melkite Christian. Al-‘Azîz's two brothers-in-law, Orestes and
Arsenius, were nominated Patriarch of Jerusalem and Metropolitan of Cairo,
respectively. In spite of Muslim discontent and jealousy, al-‘Azîz permitted
the Coptic Patriarch Ephraim to restore the Church of St. Mercurius near
Fustât. Moreover, he protected the Patriarch against Muslim attacks.

She cites: Madelung Wilferd, "Ismâ`îliyya", EI2, vol. 6 (1978): 198-206.
Steigerwald Diane, L'islâm: les valeurs communes au judéo-christianisme,
Montréal-Paris: Médiaspaul, 1999. Vajda Georges, "Ahl al-kitâb", EI2 , vol.
1 (1979): 264-266

From which no doubt the primary sources can be tracked down.


A quick web browse dug up the following site with a brief account of the
bishops of Jerusalem:

http://morewhoiswho.tripod.com/history.html

In 986, Jeremiah (or Orestus) became the new Patriarch (986-1006?). At the
same time, his brother Arsenius became the Metropolitan of Cairo. In the
beginning of his patriarchate, Orestus enjoyed tranquillity, being able to
influence Caliph Aziz (975-996) through the Christian Vizier ‘Isa Ibn Nastur
and his Russian wife who was also Christian.
However, when the son of Aziz, Abu Ali Mansur El-Hakim, became the new
caliph, everything changed drastically. This fanatic Muslim, who believed
himself to be the incarnation of the Deity, began to persecute both
Christians and Jews. In 1004, he ordered all Christians and Jews to wear a
black turban and a special belt. In 1008, he forbade the Palm Sunday
procession from Bethany to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and prohibited
the making of wine. In addition to this, he fired or forced to convert to
Islam all Christian officials and ordered both Christians and Jews to wear
black robes, ride only donkeys, and display a cross (Christians) and a
wooden image of a calf (Jews) in baths. Finally, in 1009, he ordered that
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre be razed. The destruction began on
September 28, 1009. All the affiliated buildings were destroyed and
everything of value was appropriated by the Muslims.
In 1006-1007, disputes about the day of the Easter celebration resumed
among the Christians of the Holy Land. Patriarch Orestus went to
Constantinople and left the supervision of Jerusalem in the hands of the
Patriarch of Alexandria. It appears that all the various Christians
celebrated Easter on different days. While Egyptian Christians could reach
the agreement and unify the day of Easter celebration, Palestinian
Christians did not want to approve it. Finally, the Alexandrian Patriarch
declared firmly the unification of celebration. Orestus died in
Constantinople and was succeeded by Theophilus (1012-c.1020).

Unfortunately no sources are given but the account seems sober and
authoritative, if prejudiced. It is also unclear if "his" Russian wife
married al-Aziz or the vizier.

Chris








"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-9FAAB1.16301004032006@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <1141505311.815469.268540@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
amir_al_muminin@comcast.net wrote:

An ancestor of mine. His full name and title was Abu Ali al-Mansur
al-Hakim bi Amr'allah, Fatimid Caliph [996 - 1021] (Cairo, Egypt July
24, 985 - probably February 12, 1021 Egypt). Al-Hakim for short. His
wife and mother of his successor was his cousin, Amina "Ruqayya", a
daughter of Abdullah a son of Imam al Muizz. His physical description
is much the same as his father's tall with broad shoulders, fair
skin, sparkling blue eyes, and reddish blonde hair.

He was viewed negatively by Christians since he destroyed the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre, even though his mother was born and continuted in
the Orthodox Christian faith and she even helped in the rebuilding of
the church. His mother's name was Maria and she was the sister of two
important bishops, namely Orestes the Bishop of Jerusalem and Arsenius
the Bishop of Cairo.

This is fascinating. Could you cite published authorities for (1) the
identification of his mother as the sister of two bishops (presumably
Orthodox); and for (2) your line of descent from him? I suspect most
readers of this group, like me, have no experience with published
literature on medieval-to-modern descents within the Muslim world and
would be very interested to learn what sort of genealogical scholarship
is available, even if it is in Arabic.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Gjest

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 mar 2006 23:31:03

A brand new book printed in English is "Women and the Fatimids in the
World of Islam" by Delia Cortese and Simonetta Calderini. It details
the wives and mothers of the Fatimid Caliphs, the prominent women of
the Fatimid court, and the general position of women at the time of the
Fatimid empire.

They question the notion of whether his mother was Maria or a Muslim
wife. They tend to believe she was a Muslim wife. I believe the best
evidence points to his mother being Maria, who was defintely a wife of
his father. I quote from the book "who is only known through her title
al-Sayyida al-Aziziyya or al-Aziza (d 995). She was a Melchite Copt,
whose two brothers were appointed by Al-Aziz as patriarchs of the
Melchite Church. Also, her father, according to al-Maqrizi (or one of
her brothers according to other sources), was sent as ambassador to
Sicily by al-Aziz." There then follows a little later a mention of
al-Hakim's mother seeking a Muslim's prayers to heal her son on an
occassion, but I don't really think this implies that she wasn't a
Christian. As the wife of the Caliph she would have had to have had
respect for Muslim religious figures. And it seems that she went to
this man as a last resort.

Every line of descent from al-Hakim seems questionable. The three main
lines are the Muhammad Shah line, the Imam Shah line, and the Qasim
Shah line. All three of these pedigrees going back in different
fashions to the Imams of Alamut who claimed descent from al-Hakim. The
Muhammad Shah line seems to be extinct, the Qasim Shah line goes to the
Aga Khan, and the Imam Shah line continues to this day in India and I'm
descended from those individuals in the female line from the Imam Shah
line. The last figurehead of the Imam Shah line was Baqir Shah who died
fairly young in 1835.

Gjest

Re: Al Hakam, Sultan of Egypt

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 mar 2006 17:17:50

amir_al_mumi...@comcast.net wrote:
An ancestor of mine. His full name and title was Abu Ali al-Mansur
al-Hakim bi Amr'allah

Congratulations on this line of your ancestry.
I would dearly like to descend from Sherbanu (also called Salama) the
daughter of emperor Yazdegard. :-)

Every line of descent from al-Hakim seems questionable. The three main
lines are the Muhammad Shah line, the Imam Shah line, and the Qasim
Shah line. All three of these pedigrees going back in different
fashions to the Imams of Alamut who claimed descent from al-Hakim

1. Al-Hakim bi Amr'Allah
2. Al-Zahir
3. Al-Mustansir bi Allah
4. Nizar al-Musta'li (escaped to Persia with 3rd son Hadi)
5. Hadi
6. Muthadi (the 1st to be born in Persia)
7. Qahir
8. A'la Dhikrihi al Salaam
9. A'la Muhammed
10. Jalaludim Hassan
11. Ala'udin Muhammed
12. Rukn al-din Khurshah (the last Sheikh al-Jebal killed with family
by mongols)
13. Shams al-din Muhammad
14. Qasim Shah (the line follows to prince Aga Khan)

It is not fully proven, but accepted, that in 1256 when the mongols
destroyed Alamut, only Shahanshah and Muhammed - brother and son of
Rukn al-din Kurshah - escaped.
How the other mentioned lines, Muhammad Shah and Imam Shah go in
different fashions to the Imams of Alamut? (I really want to know and
not start any argument)

If you know I would also like to understand exactly when the Imamate is
coincident with the Sheiks al-Jebal (the leaders of the Assassins).
Some detractors of the Ismailis say that the Aga Khans' male line is
really Iemenite through the persian Hassan i Sabbah.

A brand new book printed in English is "Women and the Fatimids in the
World of Islam" by Delia Cortese and Simonetta Calderini. It details
the wives and mothers of the Fatimid Caliphs, the prominent women of
the Fatimid court, and the general position of women at the time of the
Fatimid empire.

The Aga Khans are very rich and since sometime generously support
several universities, institutes and editorial iniciatives that may
help ismailism historically and doctrinally. I remember a book from an
organization of ismaili's women dealing with the Prophets' wives where
was stated that when Aisha knew that Muhammad was sleeping with Maryia,
the Copt, lead a revolt of all the other wives making Muhammad shout at
them and build a new room to Maryia besides the prayer's house. How
those details were recorded I can not imagine!
The political correctness of our days in one line is to improve the
women status in other to show that the muslim leadership under the
Coran is not necessarily violent or oppressive. For all reasons I would
reed that book with some cautiousness.

Chris Bennett, let us know that "The Caliph al-'Azîz continued his
father's policy of religious tolerance and married a Melkite
Christian".
Not beeing a specialist I can not evaluate the extent of that religious
tolerance but I doubt that it would permit christian women to own
significant properties (and very probably land as it was confiscated by
edict). Also if his mother and oncles belonged to a high rank of the
Melchite Copts (lower class illiterates would not be made bishops) it
is not clear why he later turned against christians.
If al-Aziz married a melchite copt was certainly for political reasons
- there were good political reasons - but probably only after he had
assured an heir by a muslim mother. Otherwise it would be political
suicide.
It is possible that al-Hakim was the only heir after his brother's
unexpected death but if his mother was christian that would have been a
very unusual circumstance and recorded as so and not only discussed as
a possibility some centuries later.

Best regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»