جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "fatimids" در نشریات گروه "ادیان و عرفان"

With the arrival of Muslim Arabs in Egypt, there were extensive social and cultural changes in the region. During this period, Muslim relations with Coptic Christians, who made up the majority of Egyptians, were subject to changes in the power and policies of Muslim rulers. Under such circumstances, the situation of Melkite Christians of St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai was somewhat different from that of other Christians living in Egypt. The Melkite Christians living in this monastery always experienced a better situation than their fellow believers and all the time were considered by Muslims, while many Muslim rulers of the region gave a hard time to the other Christians. These relations were never one-sided and the monks of this monastery also had a peaceful attitude towards Muslims. This article seeks to examine the reasons for the interaction of the Melkite Christians of St. Catherine's Monastery with the Muslim rulers of the Fatimid, Ayyubid, and Mamluk periods.

Fatimids (297-567 AH) were the Shi’a caliphs who, after a period of organizational secret activities by the Isma’ili Da’wa organization, made use of the capacities existing among Berber tribes in north Africa to establish a state, conquering Egypt and founding Cairo, and revealing their perspective in progressing and conquering the Islamic East, rivaling with Abbasid caliphate. This Shi’a minority could manage to dominate a vast region of Islamic lands with Sunni and Dhemmi inhabitants for more than two and a half century. In some eras, such as the first caliphate period in Egypt, they had a high popularity and authority as well. We know that the successes of Fatimid government in controlling and managing the country’s affairs were the result of their social approach and policies. One of the Fatimid’s social policies was their interaction with tribes and their use of tribal capacities of Maghrib and Egypt. The Kutama Berber tribe was the most important and the greatest supporter of Fatimids in periods of Da’wa and establishment of the government. The main question of this article is as follows: “What was the role of this tribe in establishing the government and ultimate result of the activity of this tribe in Egyptian government?” The finding of this study is that Kutama tribe in Da’wa period, especially since the presence of the Shi’a Abu Abdullah in Maghrib, was the main supporter of the Fatimid government. This role was continuous during the whole period of Maghrib and the early years of caliphate in Egypt until it was weakened under Abdul Aziz with the entrance of other tribes, especially Mushariqa, and it vanished after the entrance of Badr al-Jamali into Cairo, when Kutama tribe turned into an ordinary tribe.

Madinah was place to Sadat by the end of the second century and, officially, from the fourth century, who were known as "Shurafa". This group of Sadat often had Shiite tendencies, but because of the Abbasid's domination, they sometimes turned to Taqiyyah, and sometimes chose Sunni religion, but because of family affiliations, they had Shiite tendencies. In the era of the Fatimid rule, they clearly had a Shiite religion. With the fall of the Fatimids and the rise of Ayyubid dynasty and then Mamaalik, pressure increased on the aristocrats. At this time, the city had two groups called "Muqim" and "Mujawir"; Mujawiris had come from outside and were often Sunnis, but Muqims were Shiite and supported the aristocrats and noble class. The controversy continued between the two groups. In the first half of the th century A.H., there was the same dispute that the book, "Nasihah al-Mushawir Wa Taziyah al-Mujawir", is a complete representation of the conflict between the aforementioned groups. ‡›™‘”†•

Bani Aqil clan succeeded, in the period of the weakness and decline of Hamdanids, to found their government by conquering the cities of Musel and Nasibin and paying tribute to and following Buwayhid emirs. In view of the fact that Bani Aqil government settled in a strategic region, their government was much important for the neighboring governments. The Shiite government of Bani Aqil established its power by proclaiming independence from Āl Buya and following Fatimids. The unstable and weak bonds of this government with Fatimids and Saljuqids were a transient period in their government. With the establishment of Saljuqids in Iraq, Bani Aqil’s government became subordinate to Saljuqids. With proclaiming this subordination, this government spread its domination in northern Syria. Accordingly, the spread and penetration of Bani Aqil in that region led to struggle with Saljuqids of Rome and Syria. During those struggles, Bani Aqil’s power declined. It is worth noting that Bani Aqil’s policy against each of the governments was based on the principle of preserving their political existence.

The conquest of Rey by Saljūqs led to the loss of power balance between Basāsiri and Ibn Moslem, the Abbasid Vizier, in Baqdad. Meanwhile, the disagreement between Basāsiri and King Rahim led to the weakening of Āl Būya. After the domination of Saljūqs over Iran, this prepared the ground for realization of their policy of diffusing domination and their entering into Iraq as well as saying yes to invitation on the part of Abbasid caliph. To preserve his political-military situation, Basāsiri grants the request by Mu’ayyid al-Din Shirāzi; however, the followings result in cutting assistance to Basāsiri: Fatimids’ economic problems, no trust in Basāsiri, Ibn Maqrebi’s disagreement with Basāsiri’s movement, and the type of view in changing the force facing Saljūqs. The head of the Shiite missioners, Mu’ayyid al-Din Shirāzi, went to Cairo in secret, but the followings led to a cut between Basāsiri and the head of the missioners: Basāsiri’s impermanent companions, their change in position between Basāsiri and Saljūqs, no loyalty towards Isma’ilite Shi’as, as well as the problems raied for Yazūri, the Fatimid vizier Mustanser. Basāsiri sends gifts to caliph in Egypt and reads sermon in the name of Mustanser; however, he keeps the Abbasid caliph as his winning card in Hadithat al-Furāt with his real companion in conquest of Baqdad, Quraysh bin Badrān. Basāsiri’s movement and proclaiming the caliphate of Fatimids was a division of political power and interests rather than a result of loyalty to Isma’ilite Shi’as.In a treaty written for Basāsiri as the head of the troops, there is no mention of commitment of Isma’ilite Shi’as. Besides, identification of Imam Mahdi with Fatimid Mustanser to proclaim the association of some Imamiyya Shi’as with Basāsiri reverses Ibn Athir’s report and results from the relationship between Mazid bin Sadaqa and Basāsiri, rather than conformity of proclaiming a live Imam in a certain time. Thus, the views of some orientalists such as Gerhard Hoffman, T. Canard and Nuggle can be corrected and completed.