Dr. Khalil Andani’s conference presentation at the Institute of Ismaili Studies presented on Feb 19, 2025 at the Nizārī Ismailis and Spiritual Resurrection Conference.
The Nizārī Ismaili declaration of Qiyāma on 8 August 1164 was closely linked to an equally important disclosure: the emergence of a manifest Imam from the lineage of Nizār b. al-Mustanṣir (d. 1095) among his Ismaili followers in Alamut.
Modern scholars (Daftary et al.) have largely reproduced a narrative first established by the highly polemical Āṭā-Malik Juwaynī (1226-1283) and followed by the Ilkhanid historians. According to this narrative, there was no Nizārī Imam present at Alamut for seventy years after Nizār’s death; Ḥasan ‘alā-dhikrihi salām (Ḥasan II, d. 1166) who was the son of Muḥammad b. Kiyā Buzurg-Umīd, initially claimed to be the khalīfa and ḥujja of an absent Nizārī Imam; at some point Ḥasan II claimed the Imamate for himself. His son and successor, Muḥammad (d. 1210), then established a Fatimid-Nizārī descent for his father and himself.
More recently, Paul E. Walker has questioned whether Nizar b. al-Mustansir was even designated by al-Mustansir billah as his successor in the first place. Dr. Andani’s paper challenges Juvayni’s claims and presents an alternative narrative concerning the presence of the Nizārī Imams at Alamut, the qiyāma, and the historicity of the Fatimid-Nizārī genealogy of the Nizārī Imams. Firstly, in response to Paul E. Walker, Andani presents evidence from numerous Ismaili and non-Ismaili Muslim sources that al-Mustansir billah appointed his eldest son Nizar as his successor to the Imamat. Next, Dr. Andani documents evidence consisting of historical reports that an Imam from the progeny of Nizār b. al-Mustanṣir was already present in Persia at least ten years before the qiyāma declaration.
Al-Fāriqī (1117-1181), whose Tarīkh was completed in 560/1164 and contains historical events up to 549/1154, reported that an Imam descended from Nizār b. al-Mustanṣir was present among the Persian Ismailis at least a decade before the qiyāma. Several historians (Juwaynī, Qazwīnī, al-Andalusī, Ibn Muyassar, Rashīd al-Dīn, and Mustawfī) corroborate this general claim. Third, he offers a new lens to understand the Imamological claims of Ḥasan II when he declared qiyāma. Ḥasan II most likely claimed to be the ḥujja (proof) and khalīfa (deputy) of the Qā’im (Lord of Resurrection). According to the Fatimid daʿīs al-Nu‘mān (d. 974) and Nāṣir-i Khusraw (d. ca. 1070), these titles (ḥujjat al-qā’im; khalīfat al-qā’im) describe a special rank of Imam who represents the Qā’im and undertakes his mission.
Finally, Dr. Andani shows that the Fatimid-Nizārī genealogy of Ḥasan II and the Imams succeeding him was generally regarded as authentic by medieval Muslim scholars. Several notable historians, biographers, and ʿĀlid chief genealogists (nuqubā’) recognized the Nizārī Imams of Alamut as genuine lineal descendants of Nizār b. al-Mustanṣir. Meanwhile, the claim that the Nizārī Imams were the descendants of Muhammad b. Kiyā Buzurg-Umīd is nowhere to be found outside Ilkhanid sources, which suggests that Juwaynī himself may have fabricated this claim.
Ismailimail 