FATIMITES, or Fatimides, the name of a dynasty called after Fatima, daughter of the prophet Mahomet, from whom and her husband the caliph Ali, son of Abu Talib, they claimed descent. The dynasty is also called ʽObaidi (Ubaidī) after ʽObaidallah, the first sovereign, and ʽAlawī, a title which it shares with other dynasties claiming the same ancestry. For a list of sovereigns see Egypt, section History (Mahommedan period); three, however, must be prefixed who reigned in north-western Africa before the annexation of Egypt: al-Mahdī ʽObaidallah 297 (909); al-Qā’im Mahommed 322 (934); al-Mansūr Ismāʽīl 334 (945).
The dynasty owed its rise to the attachment to the family of the prophet which was widespread in the Moslem world, and the belief that the sovereignty was the right of one of its members. Owing, however, to the absence of the principle of primogeniture there was difference of opinion as to the person whose claim should be enforced, and a number of sects arose maintaining the rights of different branches of the family. The Fatimites were supported by those who regarded the sovereignty as vested in Ismāʽīl, son of Jaʽfar al-Sādiq, great-great-grandson of Alī, through his second son Hosain (Ḥusain). Of this Ismāʽīl the first Fatimite caliph was supposed to be the great-grandson. The line of ancestors between him and Ismāʽīl is, however, variously given, even his father’s name being quite uncertain, and in some of the pedigrees even Ismāʽīl does not figure. Apparently when the family first became of political importance their Alid descent was not disputed at Bagdad, and the poet al-Sharīf al-Radī (d. A.H. 406: A.D. 1015), in whose family the office of Naqīb (registrar of the Alids) was hereditary, appears to have acknowledged it (Dīwān, ed. Beirut, p. 972). When their success became a menace to the caliphs of Bagdad, genealogists were employed to demonstrate the falsity of the claim, and a considerable literature, both official and unofficial, rose in consequence. The founder of the dynasty was made out to be a scion of a family of heretics from whom the terrible Carmathian sect had originated: later on (perhaps owing to the rôle played by Jacob, son of Killis, in bringing the Fatimites to Egypt), the founder was made out to have been a Jew, either as having been adopted by the heretic supposed to be his father, or as having been made to personate the real ʽObaidallah, who had been killed in captivity. While the stories that make him of either Jewish or Carmathian origin may be neglected, as the product of malice, the uncertainty of the genealogies offered by their partisans renders any positive solution of the problem impossible. What seems to be clear is that secretly within the Abbasid empire propaganda was carried on in favour of one or other Alid aspirant, and the danger which any such aspirant incurred by coming forward openly led to his whereabouts being concealed except from a very few adherents. What is known then is that towards the end of the 3rd Islamic century the leader of the sect of Ismāʽīlites (Assassins, q.v.) who afterwards mounted a throne, lived at Salamia, near Emesa (Homs), having agents spread over Arabia, Persia and Syria, and frequently receiving visits from pious adherents, who had been on pilgrimage to the grave of Hosain (Ḥusain). Such visitors received directions and orders such as are usual in secret societies. One of these agents, Abū Abdallah al-Hosain called al-Shīʽī, said to have filled the office of censor (muhtasib) at Basra, received orders to carry on a mission in Arabia, and at Mecca is said to have made the acquaintance of some members of the Berber tribe Kutama, south of the bay of Bougie. These persons persuaded him to travel home with them in the character of teacher of the Koran, but according to some authorities the ground had already been prepared there for a political mission. He arrived in the Kutama country in June 893, and appears very soon to have been made chief, thereby exciting the suspicion of the Aghlabite ruler of Kairawān, Ibrāhīm b. Aḥmad, which, however, was soon allayed. His success provoked a civil war among the Berbers, but he was protected by a chief named Ḥasan b. Hārūn, and displayed sufficient military ability to win respect. Nine years after his arrival he made use of the unrest following on the death of the Aghlabite Ibrāhīm to attack the town of Mila, which he took by treachery, and turned into his capital; the son and successor of Ibrāhīm, Abu’l-ʽAbbās ʽAbdallah, sent his son al-Aḥwal to deal with the new power, and he defeated al-Shīʽī in some battles, but in 903 al-Aḥwal was recalled by his brother Ziyādatallah, who had usurped the throne, and put to death.
At some time after his first successes al-Shīʽī sent a messenger (apparently his brother) to the head of his sect at Salamia, bidding him come to the Kutama country, and place himself at the head of affairs, since al-Shīʽī’s followers had been taught to pay homage to a Mahdī who would at some time be shown them. It is said that ʽObaidallah, who now held this post, was known to the court at Bagdad, and that on the news of his departure orders were sent to the governor of Egypt to arrest him: but by skilful simulation ʽObaidallah succeeded in escaping this danger, and with his escort reached Tripoli safely. Instructions had by this time reached the Aghlabite Ziyādatallah to be on the watch for the Mahdī, who was finally arrested at Sijilmāsa (Tafilalt) in the year A.H. 292 (A.D. 905); his companion, al-Shīʽī’s brother, had been arrested at an earlier point, and the Mahdī’s journey to the south-west must have been to elude pursuit.
The invitation to the Mahdī turned out to have been premature; for Ziyādatallah had sent a powerful army to oppose al-Shīʽī, which, making Constantine its headquarters, had driven al-Shīʽī into the mountains: after six months al-Shīʽī secured an opportunity for attacking it, and won a complete victory. Early in 906 another army was sent to deal with al-Shīʽī, and an earnest appeal came from the caliph Muqtafī (Moktafi), addressed to all the Moslems of Africa, to aid Ziyādatallah against the usurper. The operations of the Aghlabite prince were unproductive of any decided result, and by September 906 al-Shīʽī had got possession of the important fortress Tubna and some others. Further forces were immediately sent to the front by Ziyādatallah, but these were defeated by al-Shīʽī and his officers, to whom other towns capitulated, till Ziyādatallah found it prudent to retire from Al-Urbus or Laribus, which had been his headquarters, and entrench himself in Raqqāda, one of the two capitals of his kingdom, Kairawān being the other. Ziyādatallah is charged by the chroniclers with dissoluteness and levity, and even cowardice: after his retreat the fortresses and towns in what now constitute the department of Constantine and in Tunisia fell fast into al-Shīʽī’s hands, and he was soon able to threaten Raqqāda itself.
By March 909 Raqqāda had become untenable, and Ziyādatallah resolved to flee from his kingdom; taking with him his chief possessions, he made for Egypt, and thence to ʽIrak: his final fate is uncertain. The cities Raqqāda and Kairawān were immediately occupied by Al-Shīʽī, who proceeded to send governors to the other places of importance in what had been the Aghlabite kingdom, and to strike new coins, which, however, bore no sovereign’s name. Orders were given that the Shīʽite peculiarities should be introduced into public worship.
In May 909 al-Shīʽī led a tremendous army westwards to the kingdom of Tahert, where he put an end to the Rustamite dynasty, and appointed a governor of his own: he thence proceeded to Sijilmāsa where ʽObaidallah lay imprisoned, with the intention of releasing him and placing him on the throne. After a brief attempt at resistance, the governor fled, and al-Shīʽī entered the city, released ʽObaidallah and presented him to the army as the long-promised Imām. The day is given as the 26th of August 909. ʽObaidallah had been in prison more than three years. Whether his identity with the Mahdī for whom al-Shīʽī had been fighting was known to the governor of Sijilmāsa is uncertain. If it was, the governor and his master the Aghlabite sovereign might have been expected to make use of their knowledge and outwit al-Shīʽī by putting his Mahdī to death. Opponents of the Fatimites assert that this was actually done, and that the Mahdī presented to the army was not the real ʽObaidallah, but (as usual) a Jewish captive, who had been suborned to play the rôle.
The chief command was now assumed by ʽObaidallah, who took the title “al-Mahdī, Commander of the Faithful,” thereby claiming the headship of the whole Moslem world: Raqqāda
