| al-Musta'li Billah المستعلي بالله | |
|---|---|
 Gold dinar minted inFustat in the name of al-Musta'li, 1099/1100 | |
| Imam–Caliph of theFatimid Caliphate | |
| Reign | 1094–1101 |
| Predecessor | al-Mustansir Billah |
| Successor | al-Amir bi-Ahkam Allah |
| Born | 15/16 September 1074 Cairo |
| Died | 11/12 December 1101 Cairo |
| Issue | al-Amir bi-Ahkam Allah |
| Dynasty | Fatimid |
| Father | al-Mustansir Billah |
| Religion | Musta'li Isma'ilism |
Abū al-Qāsim Aḥmad ibn al-Mustanṣir (Arabic:أبو القاسم أحمد بن المستنصر; 15/16 September 1074 – 11/12 December 1101), better known by hisregnal nameal-Mustaʿlī biʾllāh (المستعلي بالله,lit. 'The One Raised Up by God'), was the ninthFatimid caliph and the 19thimam[a] ofMusta'li Ismailism.
Although not the eldest (and most likely the youngest) of the sons of Caliphal-Mustansir Billah, al-Musta'li became caliph through the machinations of his brother-in-law, thevizieral-Afdal Shahanshah. In response, his oldest brother and most likely candidate for their father's succession,Nizar, rose in revolt inAlexandria but was defeated and executed. This caused a major split in the Isma'ili movement. Many communities, especially inPersia andIraq, split off from the officially sponsored Isma'ili hierarchy and formed their ownNizari movement, holding Nizar and his descendants as the rightful imams.
Throughout his reign, al-Musta'li remained subordinate to al-Afdal, who was thede facto ruler of the Fatimid Caliphate. The Caliphate's core territory in Egypt experienced a period of good government and prosperity, but the Fatimids suffered setbacks inSyria, where they were faced with the advance of the SunniSeljuk Turks. Al-Afdal managed to recover the port city ofTyre, and even recaptureJerusalem in the turmoil caused by the arrival of theFirst Crusade in northern Syria. Despite Fatimid attempts to make common cause with the Crusaders against the Seljuks, the latter advanced south andcaptured Jerusalem in July 1099, sealing their success with a major victory over the Fatimid army led by al-Afdal at theBattle of Ascalon shortly after. Al-Musta'li died in 1101 and was succeeded by his five-year-old son,al-Amir.
Ahmad, the future al-Musta'li, was born inCairo on 20Muharram 467AH (15 or 16 September 1074),[7][8] or perhaps on 18 or 20 Muharram 468 AH (2 or 4 September 1075)[9] to the eighthFatimid caliph,al-Mustansir Billah (r. 1036–1094), and was most likely the youngest of all of al-Mustansir's sons.[b][7][11] Another son of al-Mustansir had been born in 1060 with the same name—Abu'l-Qasim Ahmad—as the future al-Musta'li, and some later sources have confused this as al-Musta'li's birth date. It is assumed by modern scholars that this older brother had died in the meantime, allowing the name to be reused for al-Musta'li. In one source he is called Abu'l-Qasim Ahmad 'the Younger' (or possibly 'the Youngest', i.e. of all sons).[9][12]
At the time of his birth, theFatimid Caliphate,established in Egypt with Cairo as its capital since 973, was undergoing a profound crisis: it had lost most ofSyria to theSeljuk Turks, while in Egypt itself, clashes between theFatimid army's Turkish andblack African troops led to the breakdown of the central government and widespread famine and anarchy, leaving al-Mustansir as a powerless figurehead, virtually imprisoned in hispalace and at the mercy of military warlords.[13] In January 1074, the generalBadr al-Jamali assumed thevizierate and proceeded to restore peace and order in the country and repel a Seljuk invasion, saving al-Mustansir's life and his dynasty; but at the cost of al-Mustansir delegating all his powers over the government, army, and the religious and judicial administration to him.[14][15]
Ahmad's oldest half-brother,Nizar ibn al-Mustansir, was considered at the time as the most likely successor to their father, as had been the custom until then;[7] indeed Nizar is often stated even by modern historians to have been the designated[c] successor of his father.[17][18] No formal designation of Nizar as heir is recorded by the time of al-Mustansir's death;[19][7] both Badr al-Jamali and his son and successoral-Afdal Shahanshah favoured the accession of Ahmad. Shortly before his death, al-Mustansir consented to the wedding of Ahmad with Badr's daughter Sitt al-Mulk.[7]
Al-Mustansir died on 29 December 1094, on the day ofEid al-Ghadir, the most importantShi'a festival.[8] According to theMamluk-era historianal-Maqrizi, al-Afdal placed Ahmad on the throne and declared him caliph asal-Musta'li bi'llah (lit. 'The One Raised Up by God'). He then summoned three of al-Mustansir's sons—Nizar, Abdallah, and Isma'il, apparently the most prominent among the caliph's progeny—to the palace, where they were called on to do homage to their brother. All three refused, each claiming to have been designated as successor by their father.[20][21] This refusal apparently took al-Afdal completely by surprise, and the brothers were even allowed to leave the palace; but while Abdallah and Isma'il sought refuge in a nearby mosque, Nizar immediately fled Cairo.[20][21] To add to the confusion, when learning of al-Mustansir's death, Baraqat, the chief missionary (da'i) of Cairo (and thus head of theIsma'ili religious establishment), proclaimed Abdallah as caliph with the regnal nameal-Muwaffaq ('The Blessed One').[22] Soon, however, al-Afdal regained control: Baraqat was arrested (and later executed), Abdallah and Isma'il were placed under surveillance and eventually acknowledged Ahmad, and a grand assembly of officials was held, which acclaimed Ahmad as imam and caliph.[23]
In 1122, Ahmad's son and successor,al-Amir (r. 1101–1130), issued a public proclamation, theal-Hidaya al-Amiriyya, to defend his father's succession, especially against the claims of Nizar's partisans.[24] In it he put forth several arguments, such as the fact that when al-Mustansir sent his sons to the provinces to protect them from the turmoil at the capital, this was supposedly done in order of rank, those closest to Cairo being the highest in rank: Abu Abdallah was to go toAcre; Abu'l-Qasim Muhammad (father ofal-Hafiz, caliph in 1131–1149) toAscalon; Nizar to the port ofDamietta; and Ahmad was not even allowed to leave the palace.[11][25] Modern historians such asPaul E. Walker point out that this was a deliberately misconstrued argument, as the princes were sent away for their protection, not because of their rank.[11] According to Walker, Abu Abdallah's dispatch to Acre, where the strong army of Badr al-Jamali was stationed, is, if anything, an indication of his high importance and of his father's desire to keep him safe.[11] At the same time, since the reliable al-Maqrizi dates the event to 1068, the underage son left in Cairo was clearly not the future al-Musta'li, who had not been born yet, but rather his namesake older brother.[11]
Other pro-Musta'li traditions maintain that Ahmad was designated as heir by al-Mustansir at Ahmad's wedding banquet. On the occasion of the proclamation of theal-Hidaya al-Amiriyya, furthermore, a supposed full sister of Nizar was presented, hidden behind a veil, who affirmed that on his deathbed, al-Mustansir had chosen Ahmad as heir and left this as a bequest with one of Ahmad's sisters.[26][27][28]
Modern historians, such asFarhad Daftary, believe that these stories are most likely attempts to justify and retroactively legitimise Ahmad's accession, which they view as ade factocoup d'état by al-Afdal.[18][29] According to this view, al-Afdal chose his brother-in-law because his own position was still insecure, as he had but recently succeeded his father Badr. Ahmad, who was tied to al-Afdal by virtue of his marriage and completely dependent on him for his accession, would be a compliant figurehead who was unlikely to threaten al-Afdal's as yet fragile hold on power by attempting to appoint another to the vizierate.[18][30][31]
After fleeing from Cairo, Nizar went toAlexandria, where he gained the support of the local governor and populace, and proclaimed himself imam and caliph with the regnal name ofal-Mustafa li-Din Allah ('The Chosen One for God's Religion').[19][32][33] Nizar's partisans repulsed al-Afdal's first attempt to seize Alexandria, and Nizar's forces raided up to the outskirts of Cairo. Eventually, Nizar's forces were pushed back to Alexandria, which was placed under siege, until Nizar and his remaining followers were forced to surrender. They were taken back to Cairo, where Nizar wasimmured and left to die.[19][32][33] A letter sent to the queen ofYemen,Arwa al-Sulayhi, announcing al-Musta'li's accession, gives the officially disseminated version of events. According to the letter, like the other sons of al-Mustansir, Nizar had at first accepted al-Musta'li's imamate and paid him homage, before being moved by greed and envy to revolt. The events up to the capitulation of Alexandria are reported in some detail, but nothing is mentioned of Nizar's fate.[34]
These events caused a bitter and permanent schism in the Isma'ili movement, that lasts to the present day.[10][35] Although al-Musta'li was recognised by the Fatimid establishment and the official Isma'ili missionary organisation (theda'wa), as well as the Isma'ili communities dependent on it in Egypt, Syria and Yemen, most of the Isma'ili communities in the wider Middle East, and especiallyPersia andIraq, rejected his accession. Whether out of conviction or as a convenient excuse, the Persian Isma'ilis underHassan-i Sabbah swiftly recognised Nizar as the rightful imam, severed relations with Cairo, and set up their own independent hierarchy (theda'wa jadida,lit. 'new calling'). This marked the permanent split of the Isma'ili movement into the rival branches ofMusta'li Isma'ilism andNizari Isma'ilism.[36][37] At least one of Nizar's sons, al-Husayn, fled in 1095 with other members of the dynasty (including three of al-Mustansir's other sons, Muhammad, Isma'il, and Tahir) from Egypt to theMaghreb, where they formed a sort of opposition in exile to the new regime in Cairo.[19][33] As late as 1162, descendants, or purported descendants, of Nizar appeared to challenge the Fatimid caliphs, and were able to attract considerable followings based on lingering loyalist sentiments of the population.[38][39]
Throughout his reign, al-Musta'li was subordinate to al-Afdal.[7] According to the 13th-century Egyptian historianIbn Muyassar, "[al-Musta'li] had no noteworthy life, since al-Afdal directed the affairs of state like asultan or king, not like a vizier."[40] Al-Afdal even supplanted the caliph in public ceremonies, keeping al-Musta'li out of sight, confined to the palace.[41]
Al-Afdal was a capable administrator, and his good governance ensured the continued prosperity of Egypt throughout the reign.[7] Al-Musta'li is praised for his upright character by theSunni contemporary historianIbn al-Qalanisi, though other medieval historians stress his fanatical devotion to Shi'ism; it appears that the Isma'ilida'wa was very active during his reign.[7] The 15th-century Yemeni pro-Musta'li religious leader and historianIdris Imad al-Din preserves much information about his dealings with the Isma'ilida'wa in Yemen, particularly with Queen Arwa and the localda'i,Yahya ibn Lamak ibn Malik al-Hammadi.[7]
In foreign affairs, the Fatimids faced an increasing rivalry with the Sunni Seljuks and the Seljuk-backedAbbasid caliph,al-Mustazhir: the Seljuks expanded their rule in Syria up toGaza and, in 1095, the Abbasid caliph published a letter proclaiming the Fatimids' claims ofAlid descent to be fraudulent.[8] The Fatimids achieved some successes, with the voluntary submission ofApamea in northern Syria in 1096, followed by the recovery ofTyre in February/March 1097.[7][42] Al-Afdal also tried to conclude an alliance with the Seljuk ruler ofAleppo,Ridwan, againstDuqaq, the Seljuk ruler ofDamascus.[7] In early 1097, Ridwan agreed to recognise the suzerainty of al-Musta'li, and on 28 August had theFriday sermon read on behalf of the Fatimid caliph. This provoked such a backlash among the other Seljuk rulers of Syria that Ridwan was forced to backtrack after four weeks, and dropped al-Musta'li's name in favour of al-Mustazhir.[8][43]
In the same year, 1097, theFirst Crusade entered Syria andlaid siege toAntioch. Al-Afdal sent an embassy to make contact with the Crusaders, and used the distraction provided by the Crusade to recover control ofJerusalem from itsArtuqid Turkish rulers in July/August 1098.[7][44] This exposed the Fatimids to accusations by Sunni sources that they had made common cause with the Crusaders; the 13th-century historianIbn al-Athir even claims that the Fatimids invited the Crusaders to Syria to combat the Seljuks, who previously stood ready to invade Egypt itself.[8][45] Believing that he had reached an agreement with the Crusaders, al-Afdal did not expect them to march south, and was caught by surprise when they moved against Jerusalem in 1099. The city wascaptured after a siege on 15 July 1099, and the subsequent defeat of a Fatimid army under al-Afdal's personal command at theBattle of Ascalon on 12 August 1099 confirmed the newstatus quo.[7][46] As a result of the Crusader advance, many Syrians fled to Egypt, where a famine broke out in 1099 or 1100 as a result.[7]
Al-Musta'li died on 17 Safar 495 AH (11 or 12 December 1101,[7][8] amid rumours that he had been poisoned by al-Afdal.[40] He left three infant sons, of whom the eldest, the not quite five years old al-Mansur, was swiftly proclaimed caliph with the regnal name al-Amir bi-Ahkam Allah.[40]
al-Musta'li Born: 15/16 September 1074 Died: 12 December 1101 | ||
| Regnal titles | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by | Fatimid Caliph 29 December 1094 – 12 December 1101 | Succeeded by |
| Shia Islam titles | ||
| Preceded by | Imam ofMusta'li Isma'ilism 29 December 1094 – 12 December 1101 | Succeeded by |
