0021-1818_islam_98-1-2-i-259

126 Nasser Rabbat
the introduction of his Itti^az al-hunafa#. 36 To that end, he presents all the reports
on their genealogy in detail, both those approving of and those denying it. He,
however, takes the added precaution of stating at the beginning of every denial he
cites that he „disagrees with it“ (bari#a, lit. claim innocence of), a way both of emphasizing
his objectivity and his personal opinion. 37 Finally, al-Maqr\z\ asks his
readers to „examine the facts fairly and not be deceived by the fabrications of the
Fatimids’ detractors,“ at a time when the learned consensus in Sunni Egypt was
that the Fatimids were impostors who descended from a minor preacher with a
suspect lineage, ^Ubayd Allah, „the fifth descendant of Maymun al-Qadda1 b.
Daysan, the Manichean.“ 38
Al-Maqr\z\’s choice of wording for the title of his Itti^az al-hunafa# bi-akhbar
al-a#imma al-fatimiyyin al-khulafa# itself amounts to another bold public declaration
of his belief in their genuineness. In the first clause, he is inviting his
readers, whom he calls hunafa# (sing. hanif), to draw lessons (mawa^iz, same as
the title of the Khitat) from the history of the Fatimids. His use of the term hunafa#
is motivated by more than the necessity of rhyme. It is probably intentional and
significant. A hanif in the general sense accepted in the medieval period is the
true Muslim, the believer in the original and true religion, i.e. someone who transcends
the sectarian division that prompted the Sunnis to vehemently denigrate
both the Isma‘ili doctrine and the genealogical claim of the Fatimids. 39 But the
most significant part of the title is the second clause, since it strongly emphasizes
36 Idem, Itti^az al-hunafa# bi-akhbar al-a#imma al-fatimiyyin al-khulafa#, ed. Jamal al-Din
al-Shayyal, 4 vols. (Cairo: Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, 1967), 1: 15–54, where he logically
argues the truth of their lineage and lists prominent scholars, such as Ibn Khaldun, who
accepted it. Idem, Khitat, 2: 172–76, is a summary of the Itti^az’s discussion. Another Mamluk
historian who accepts their claim is Ibn ^Abd al-Zahir, al-Rawda al-bahiyya fi khitat al-Qahira almu^izziyya,
ed. Ayman Fu#ad Sayyid (Cairo: al-Dar al-^Arabiyya li-l-Kitab, 1996), 6–7. Other
Mamluk historians who deny their lineage, Ibn Taghr\-Bird\, Nujum, 4: 69–112; Abu 0amid
al-Quds\, K. Duwal al-islam al-sharifa al-bahiyya: wa-dhikr ma zahara li min hikam Allah
al-khafiyya fi jalb ta#ifat al-atrak ila al-diyar al-misriyya, Ulrich Haarmann and Subhi Labib, eds.,
(Beirut: al-Sharika al-Mutta1ida, 1997), 12–15.
37 al-Maqr\z\, Itti^az, 1: 15, although he otherwise revered Ibn 0azm, al-Maqr\z\ disagrees with
his denial of the Fatimids genealogical claim and tries to explain it as a function of it having been
generated in Umayyad al-Andalus; p. 23, al-Maqr\z\ rejects Ibn al-Nad\m’s denial in al-Fihrist;
p. 38, al-Maqr\z\ vehemently rejects the story of Ibn Bad\s in his Ta#rikh Ifriqiya wa-l-Gharb, and
affixes Ibn al-Ath\r’s discussion in support of the Fatimids’ genealogy.
38 al-Maqr\z\, Itti^az, 1: 52–54. The Maymunid genealogy is discussed in the same section. For a
full discussion of the allegation of a Maymunid genealogy, see Farhad Daftari, The Isma‘ilis:
Their History and Doctrines (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990), 108–16.
39 On the meaning and development of the term, see art. “0an\f,” by W. Montgomery Watt in EI 2 ,
3: 165–66.