Part 24

After this, in the latter part of the year, Shirkuh retired to Damascus. This seems to suggest that the Turks and Syrians had abandoned the projected conquest of Egypt. But Amalric saw quite clearly that the possession of Egypt was the crucial point in the struggle between the Franks and the Muslims, and himself planned to steal a march on Nur ad-Din and conquer Egypt for himself. With this end in view he raised new forces and again entered Egypt in 564, taking Bilbays and slaughtering the inhabitants. This was a more serious danger to the Egyptians than anything which had happened before, and at once the grouping of parties was changed by new alliances. Now Shawar made alliance with Nur ad-Din and invited the Turkish-Syrian army to come to the rescue. Before any result could be arranged the Franks had pressed on and were threatening Cairo. To save the city from falling into the hands of the enemy the Egyptians determined to set fire to the ancient Fustat and abandon it, the newer Kahira was strongly fortified and could hold out on its own account. This plan was carried out. For fifty-four days the fire raged in Fustat abandoned by all its population, and nothing lay before the invaders but charred ruins and the Old Mosque, and a few other buildings which more or less resisted the conflagration.

Meanwhile Amalric obtained possession of the country and encamped before Cairo. The crafty Shawar managed to deceive him and induced him to consider suggested terms which served to delay operations whilst Shirkuh was collecting a new force and preparing to come to the relief of the Egyptians, nor was Amalric undeceived until Shirkuh arrived and joined the Egyptians. At this the Franks retired and Shirkuh entered Cairo and then made camp outside. Day by day visits of compliment were exchanged between Shawar and the Turkish leader, but Shawar constantly postponed the payment of the money expected and promised for Shirkuh’s help and, judging from his knowledge of the man Shirkuh was convinced that he was trying to play off the Frank and the Syrian against one another. At a conference of his generals Shirkuh announced that it was of primary importance to put an end to this state of affairs and recommended that Shawar should be seized and held prisoner. No one was ready to take the first step in the execution of this proposal until Saladin volunteered to do it with his own hands. Soon afterwards Shawar was seen coming with a train of attendants to pay one of his customary visits. Salah ad-Din with his guard rode out to meet him, and as they rode side by side he suddenly grasped Shawar’s collar and pulled him off his horse, at the same time ordering his men to fall on the attendants of the wazir. Shawar was then taken to a tent and held prisoner. For some time Shirkuh was doubtful what the result of this measure would be, then an embassy came from the Khalif bringing the official pelisse, the outward badge of the wazirate, to Shirkuh and asking for the head of Shawar. This was equivalent to appointing Shirkuh as ruler of Egypt, and was a final and definite step in ending the independent existence of the Fatimid Khalifate and establishing the suzerainty of Nur ad-Din, whose servant Shirkuh was. On Wednesday, the 17th of Rabiʿ II. 565, Shirkuh was formally invested as wazir, and aroused popular enthusiasm by permitting a general looting of Shawar’s palace. Shirkuh, however, held office only two months and died on Saturday, 28th of Jumada II., being succeeded in his office by his nephew Saladin. Soon afterwards Aiyub, Saladin’s father arrived in Egypt, and his son offered to resign his appointment to his father, but Aiyub refused to accept this sacrifice and urged his son to continue in the exercise of the functions which he had received as the most trusty and efficient lieutenant of his uncle Shirkuh.

Two years later (567) a message was received from Nur ad-Din ordering the _khutba_ in Egypt to be changed and the name of the ʿAbbasid Khalif to be used in place of the Fatimid. Saladin hesitated fearing a revolt of the people at this termination of the Egyptian Khalifate and proclamation of their being incorporated in the Khalifate of Baghdad. But fresh orders from Damascus insisted. In Cairo there was much reluctance amongst Saladin’s officers to venture on this change, but at length a Persian visitor named al-Amir al-Aahin offered to ascend the pulpit next Friday and pronounce the new _khutba_, and this was accepted. On the following Friday the Persian did so, and no single word of protest was uttered: the Fatimid dynasty fell without being the object of more than private comment, and Egypt acquiesced in the change without discussion or even taking any particular notice. At the moment the Khalif al-ʿAdid was ill and confined to his rooms. The members of Saladin’s suite debated whether he ought to be informed of the change, but it was agreed that if he recovered it would then be time enough to tell him, and if he did not recover he might as well die in peace without knowing that his dynasty had fallen. Shortly afterwards he died in this peaceful ignorance.

This surprisingly commonplace end of the Fatimids is a striking comment on their history. As organised by ʿAbdullah b. Maymun the Ismaʿilian sect was a secret society, and this society had established an empire in which it ruled over subjects who, though loyal to their rulers as political sovereigns, were totally out of sympathy with the society’s known or supposed aims. So far as these had become prominent from time to time they had only produced difficulties and friction, most pronounced in the incidents connected with al-Hakim; the wiser and saner advisers of the throne undoubtedly made it their aim to push the sectarian element into the background, or get rid of it altogether. Yet all through the history of Egypt, at least up to the time of al-Mustansir, that sectarian element was very distinctly present and the Fatimid Khalif as the pontiff of the Ismaʿilians was visited by pilgrims from Persia, Arabia, and other parts. As a sectarian movement the Fatimid adventure had two off-shoots which are still to some extent living forces. The Druses of the Lebanon still form a vigorous and flourishing community of no small political importance. Their religious tenets have been long a secret, though many details have leaked forth; but now there is a “modernist” party, chiefly of the younger men, amongst the Druses, and these desire to reveal their religious beliefs more fully feeling that secrecy has only tended to misrepresentation of their community, and believing that the moral ideals which they hold together with their combination of agnostic and pantheistic doctrine furnishes a religious system likely to gain many converts at the present time. How far these modernists will succeed in divulging their beliefs, and how far their movement will receive the sympathy of the heads of the sect remains to be seen. It is understood that Dr. Bliss of Beirut will be the probable intermediary of communication with the western world if this disclosure takes place.

The second important off-shoot is that of the Assassins. The Syrian branch of the Assassins was completely exterminated, and the great headquarters at Alamut was destroyed by the Turks, but besides these two greater branches there were many minor groups of the sect which have lived out a secluded existence scattered in various parts of central Asia and India, and undoubtedly exist at the present day. As late as 1866 an English judge in Bombay was called upon to decide a succession case according to the jurisprudence of the Assassins. Prof. Browne states, “remnants of the sect, as I was informed by a very intelligent and observant Babi dervish of Kirman, of whom I saw a great deal when I was in Cairo in the early part of the year 1903, still exist in Persia, while in India (under the name of ‘Khojas’ or ‘Khwajas’) and Chitral (under the name of ‘Mullas’), as well as in Zanzibar, Syria, and elsewhere, they still enjoy a certain influence and importance, though it requires a great effort of imagination to associate their present pontiff, the genial and polished Agha Khan, with the once redoubtable Grand Masters of Alamut and the ‘Old Man of the Mountain’—‘Le Vieux’ of Marco Polo’s quaint narrative” (Browne: _Literary Hist. of Persia_, p. 460).

As a political force the Fatimids rapidly vanished. In the great struggle between Franks and Turks they had for a while hindered the co-operation of the Muslims under Turkish leadership, and perhaps had contributed to the weakness which had allowed the establishment of a Frankish kingdom in Jerusalem, though this weakness would be sufficiently explained by the fact that the earlier Turkish migration westwards had just ceased, and the greater movement which followed had not yet begun. When Saladin swept aside the remnants of the Fatimid Khalifate it disappeared without leaving any appreciable mark on contemporary history.

On the religious history of Islam the Fatimids left even less impression. They were entirely excluded from the theological life of the Muslim community, save that they probably contributed to the strong disfavour with which the orthodox regarded philosophical and scientific studies as these took a suspected colour by reason of the sympathy with which the Shiʿites generally, and the Ismaʿilians in particular had regarded them.

XIX

THE FATIMID KHALIFATE IN ITS RELATION TO GENERAL HISTORY

A few words may be added to define more plainly the part taken by the Fatimid Khalifate in the general course of history. So long as the Fatimite movement merely took the form of a sectarian body in Asia it had hardly more than a local interest, and even the formation of a Fatimid Khalifate at Kairawan does no more than illustrate the disintegration of the empire of the Khalifs of Baghdad. But the conquest of Egypt brought the Fatimids into relation with a wider world and induced them, unwisely no doubt, to venture on the conquest of Syria. It is a question how far the power ruling in Egypt ever can be free from Syria: the ancient Pharaohs were drawn into Egyptian expeditions, and the two lands have been closely involved one with the other ever since: nearly always Syria has proved the grave in which the prospects and hopes of Egypt have been buried. In the days of the Fatimids Syria was the battle ground of the Near East, and every country from Byzantium to the Oxus was more or less drawn into the conflicts there, whilst in the later part of the period the whole of Christendom, except Spain, was involved: and every power of East or West found there either severe loss or total ruin. The whole course of the history of the 9-12th centuries of the Christian era shows the gradual sucking in of Muslim and Christian powers to this maelstrom, and in every case with disastrous results.

The whole period of the Fatimid Khalifate, from the first formation of the parent sect or conspiracy to the final downfall before Salah ad-Din, may be divided conveniently into three periods; (i) the rise of the Ismaʿilian sect and the establishment of a Khalifate claiming Fatimid descent at Kairawan, (ii) the conquest of Egypt and the period of more or less prosperous rule over Egypt and Syria, and (iii) the period of decay under the attacks of the Saljuq Turks and the Crusaders to its final downfall.

(i) _The Formation of the Fatimid Khalifate._ (A.H. 260-356 = A.D. 873-966.)

This was the period during which the Ismaʿilian sect was founded, spread to North Africa, and a Khalifate was established at Kairawan. It was a time during which the Khalifate of Baghdad was passing through a course of rapid decay: under no other circumstances would such progress on the part of the Ismaʿilis have been possible. The Khalif Harunu r-Rashid died in 193 (= 808) whilst actually proceeding against a rebellious son in Khurasan. His death was followed by a civil war at the end of which his rebellious son was established as Khalif, but soon afterwards in 205 (= 820) Khurasan was practically lost to the Khalifate and passed into the hands of the independent dynasty of the Tahirites, who ruled nominally in the Khalif’s name but paid him no obedience. Tahir himself was an Arab, but his supporters were mainly Persians, and this begins the period of Persian political supremacy which lasted until the rise of the Turks in the middle of the 4th cent. The Saffarids who ruled in Khurasan from 260 to 290 A.H. were purely Persian, and so were the Samanids who arose in 288 and ruled until 400. All these maintained themselves in the east, but in 320 (= 932) the Buwayhids, a Daylamite tribe from the shores of the Caspian Sea came down into the very heart of the Khalifate, and from 344 until 447 controlled Baghdad, holding the Khalif as an ornamental figure to adorn the pageant of state. Not only were these Buwayhids Persians but, like the Saffarids and Samanids, they were Shiʿites, not themselves recognising the Khalif as the true ruler of Islam, but using him simply as a tool to give effect to their rule over those who did. This was the golden period of Arabic philosophy and literature.

In North Africa the Aghlabid dynasty of Zairawan went down before the followers of the Fatimid Mahdi, who increased in power and prosperity until they conquered Egypt in 356. Only in the far West the rival Khalifate of Cordova held its own, minor independent states were formed in the further parts of North Africa, and in Sicily a popular movement declared for the orthodox Khalif of Baghdad.

During all this time Islam hardly enters into the political history of Europe, save in Spain. The Byzantine Empire held its own owing to the weakness of Islam: the Latin Empire was in process of disintegration and new states were being formed in the west. Almost contemporaneously two sturdy races begin to appear at points far removed, the Turks who are gradually filtering across the Oxus into Persia and becoming Muslims, and the Northmen who are settling on the sea-board of the North-West of Europe and becoming Christians.

(ii) _The Golden Age of the Fatimids._ (A.H. 356-469 = A.D. 966-1076.)

During the period of the decay of the Abbasid Khalifate the Fatimids were able to seize an important part of the Abbasid dominions and make themselves rulers of Palestine and Syria, with more or less intermittent control over Arabia. At this time the three leading powers in the Near East were the Khalifate of Baghdad, the Fatimid Khalifate of Egypt, and the Byzantine Empire, but of these three the Fatimid Khalifate of Egypt was the most vigorous and aggressive. Under Karl the Great the Western Empire had assumed a kind of protectorate over the Christians in Palestine, but in Fatimid times this had become obsolete. The two rival Khalifates were separated by a wide gulf of religious difference, how wide cannot be appreciated without following the history of the formation and development of the Fatimid Khalifate. Both made overtures to the Greeks, but the relations of Byzantium with the Muslim world generally turned on questions connected with Fatimid rule: Fatimids and Greeks faced one another in North West Syria, and it was only in Sicily that the Greeks had to deal with the Baghdad Khalifate. Before the beginning of this period Crete which had fallen into the hands of the Muslims in A.D. 825, was recovered (in A.D. 961): Sicily, conquered by the Muslims between A.D. 827 and 878, remained in their hands but, after the Fatimid conquest of North Africa it revolted and gave in its allegiance to the Khalifate of Baghdad. North Africa was divided amongst various Muslim groups, and Spain was fully occupied with its own problems. In A.D. 1038 Byzantium lost control over North Syria, so that on the whole the Greeks were receding before the Muslims. In A.D. 1029 (= A.H. 419) there was, however, a _modus vivendi_ reached between the Fatimids and the Greeks by which, in return for help during famine, the Muslims were allowed to have a mosque in Constantinople provided prayer was offered there for the Fatimid Khalif, and, apparently, the Christians were allowed freedom to visit Jerusalem. The persecution of Christians under Hakim had culminated in the destruction of the church of the Holy Sepulchre in A.D. 1009, but this was re-built soon afterwards: the persecution was an isolated incident: in Muslim lands generally neither Christians nor Jews suffered any serious disabilities, the penal laws were long obsolete, and the only penalty enforced was against a Muslim who became a convert to another religion. An additional tax had to be paid by non-Muslims, but this was in lieu of military service from which they were exempt.

The real stirring of history lay in the extreme east and west, in the rise of the Turks and of the Normans, both gradually converging upon western Asia and at the close of this period are both approaching Syria, bringing even greater disasters to their co-religionists than to those whom they regarded as their foes. During the period under present consideration both were already in this arena in small numbers, employed as mercenaries by all the three Near Eastern powers, Turkish soldiers of fortune serving under the Khalifs of Baghdad and under the Fatimids of Egypt, Northmen serving in the employ of the Emperors of Byzantium, but neither Turks nor Northmen had as yet moved in in sufficiently large numbers to become independent factors in politics.

The first assertion of the Turks appears in the career of Mahmud of Ghazna. Turkish soldiers had been employed by the Samanide of Khurasan, and one of these, Alptekin, was made governor of Khurasan, but at a disputed succession in the house of Samani he unfortunately took the side of the candidate who proved unsuccessful and so had to flee the country. With a body of followers he established himself in the mountain fortress of Ghazna (in A.H. 350 = A.D. 961), and there he and his son Sebektakin held their own, nominally as vassals of the Samanids, really as an independent brigand state. The third ruler of Ghazna, Mahmud, declared himself independent in 390 (= 999), and received investiture directly from the Khalif of Baghdad, assuming the title of Sultan, a title which he was the first to introduce into the community of Islam. Mahmud of Ghazna is one of the brilliant figures of history, but one whose importance can easily be over-estimated. In a series of twelve expeditions to India he won both fame and booty, but was not in any real sense a conqueror of India. In A.H. 407 (= A.D. 1016) he extended his power northwards to the shores of the Caspian Sea, and here before long he was brought into contact with other kinsmen of his own, Turks living across the Oxus, and it was the advance of these Turks led by the Saljuq tribe which, in his son’s days, cut off the Sultanate of Ghazna from Persia and the West and compelled the Ghazni dynasty to turn its attention eastwards. This led to the foundation of a Muslim state in India which, under the successive rule of Turks, Afghans, and Mongols, had a continuous existence to the time of the Indian Mutiny in the 19th cent. Although Mahmud and his followers were Turks he gave the civil administration mainly into the hands of Persian officials, and thus Persian became the court language of Muslim India, though Arabic was sometimes employed in important charters,—both foreign languages to rulers and subjects; and thus, when the native Hindi began to be used as a literary medium it appeared as a language which, though thoroughly Hindi in structure and grammar, had a vocabulary full of Persian and Arabic words, and in this form is known as Urdu or Hindustani. Thus Indian history, through the pushing eastwards of the Ghazni Turks by the advance of the Saljuqs, connects with the history of the West.

The Persian dynasties of the Saffarids, Samanids, and Daylamites were Shiʿite in religion, but the Turks were Sunni, that is to say “orthodox” in the sense of adhering to the traditional school which was in communion with the official Khalifate of Baghdad, so that when they came westwards they came as its champions, in contrast to the Normans who were unfriendly towards the Greek Church.

The Saljuq Turks migrated from Turkistan to Balkh about 345 (= A.D. 956), and there accepted Islam. They settled on the farther side of the Oxus about 20 parasangs from the town of Balkh, and there they were found by Mahmud of Ghazna. He removed then to the near side of the Oxus and distributed them through the province of Khurasan where, as they were broken up into small groups, they were harshly treated, and plundered until a body of 2,000 fugitives fled to Ispahan for protection. The governor there wished to employ them in the army, but Mahmud sent orders that they were to be imprisoned and their property confiscated, and followed up these orders by sending a force to scatter them. After this they took to brigandage under a leader named Tughril, and finally were pardoned by Mahmud on condition that they reduced the whole province of Khurasan to obedience to him. This work they took in hand but, in the days of Masud, the successor of Mahmud, they were able to establish their own independence and compelled the Sultan of Ghazna to abandon all control over Persia and turn his attention eastwards (Ibn Khall. iii. 224-226x).

The Saljuqs were now so prominent that al-Qaʾim the Khalif of Baghdad sent to Tughril as a loyal Sunni to deliver him from the tyranny of the Buwayhids. In response Tughril marched to Baghdad and formally restored the temporal power of the Khalif in 447 (= A.D. 1055), though this soon meant simply that the Khalif was under the guardianship of a Saljuq Turk instead of a Daylamite Buwayhid; though there was this much gain, that the Saljuqs were theoretically orthodox supporters of the Abbasid Khalifate.

The Saljuqs were now established as the champions and defenders of the Baghdad Khalifate. Under Tughril’s successor, Alp Arslan, they came into direct conflict with both the Fatimids and the Greeks. By 457 (= A.D. 1068) they were in possession of Georgia and Armenia, and had become a very serious and pressing menace to the Byzantine Empire. A few years later the Emperor Romanus IV. was totally defeated by them in 460 (= A.D. 1071), and all Asia Minor lay open to the Turks, though the Saljuq position there was insecure until they took Antioch from the Greeks. Alp Arslan was succeeded by Malah Shah who, in the course of 467-477 (= A.D. 1074-1084) established the Saljuq power in Asia Minor, and in 469 conquered Jerusalem from the Fatimids, so that practically the Saljuq Sultan, theoretically the Commander-in-Chief serving under the Khalif of Baghdad, was the master of all Western Asia. This brings us to the close of the second period and to the end of the golden age of the Fatimids.

Meanwhile in the West the Normans, destined to be the protagonists of the Saljuq Turks, were becoming a leading power in another way. In 1038 we find them serving in Sicily, in 1040 they were conquering Apulia, and soon afterwards they began minor encroachments on the Byzantine Empire. Their chief settlement, Normandy, dates from 911, and it is significant that this was one year after the foundation of the Abbey of Cluny, from which proceeded a religious reformation which found its warmest supporters in the Normans. When Pope Leo IX. made an expedition against the Normans in Apulia and was defeated by them, his greatest surprise came in finding his victorious enemies ready to pay him a reverent loyalty far beyond anything he had previously experienced. The recently converted Normans were no less definite in their orthodoxy as Christians than the recently converted Saljuqs in their orthodoxy as Muslims.