Because of the secrecy with which the Ismailis shrouded their literature, most contemporary discussions we have of early Is鈥檓aili practice and doctrine comes from hostile Sunni outsiders. The confusion surrounding Is鈥檓ailism has produced heated debates on a number of issues, from the origin of the idea that Is鈥檓ail was the proper seventh Imam to the nature of the relationship between the Is鈥檓aili Fatamid caliphs and the Carmathian Muslims in Bahrain. In The Origins of Is鈥檓ailism, Bernard Lewis argues that Is鈥檓ail himself, along with his son and a number of companions, founded the Is鈥檓aili school of thought; that the Fatimid movement and, subsequently, the Fatimid caliphate were a direct continuation of the movement founded by Is鈥檓ail; that the Carmathians鈥� origins are uncertain, but may have been founded by the Is鈥檓aili, Abdallah ben Maimun; and that the Carmathian-Fatamid split was a division between radicals and moderates following the founding of the Fatamid State. Lewis argues convincingly that Is鈥檓aili thought was (and is) radically different from that of orthodox Islam 鈥� both Sunni and Twelver Shi鈥檃. Based on a 鈥渜uasi-masonic鈥� (Lewis鈥� phrase) hierarchy of initiation and an elitist attitude towards the uninitiated, Is鈥檓ailism opposed the Sunnis鈥� relatively egalitarian ideas about access to knowledge. But Is鈥檓ailism was, paradoxically, more egalitarian in many social matters than Sunnism. It was more liberal in its treatment of women. It appealed to the artisan classes, and may have organized the first guilds of the Islamic world. In its Carmathian variety, it practiced an economic order that the orthodox confused with communism. There may be a connection between Is鈥檓aili elitism and Is鈥檓aili liberalism. After all, if the truth was properly the property of an initiate few, who cared what the unenlightened masses did? Both tendencies provoked the horrified reactions among the orthodox, who viewed the first 鈥� with some justification 鈥� as a front for a 鈥渟ecret doctrine鈥� of materialism, libertinism, even atheism, and who saw the second as a threat to their established order.
Lewis鈥� book is not just an attempt to sketch a history of the early Is鈥檓ailis. It is a history of the perceptions the non-Is鈥檓aili had of those early Is鈥檓ailis, a historiography combined with a history. In many ways, this story of the general perception of a potentially subversive heresy is more interesting than the story of the heresy itself, if only because our knowledge of the former is more substantial. The popular paranoia towards Sevener Shi鈥檌sm should remind the reader of similar attitudes throughout Western At various times, the orthodox attempted to tar the Is鈥檓ailis with patently untrue reports of non-Islamic origins (Judaic, Zoroastrian, Manichean) and with non-Islamic secret teachings. (Lewis does not draw such comparisons 鈥� though he does mention the influence of the gnostics on Is鈥檓aili thought. His monograph is narrowly focused and concise.)
This book was originally written as a doctoral dissertation and, as such, is not the best introduction to the subject 鈥� it was not written for a popular audience, and it assumes a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader. It is also in many ways out of First issued in 1940, the preface to the edition I read 鈥� published in 1975 鈥� makes it clear that much has been made obsolete by later discoveries (and that some errors were made in the hasty original preparation of the book). Still, it鈥檚 a fascinating study.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the 欧宝娱乐 database.
Bernard Lewis was the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University and the author of many critially acclaimed and bestselling books, including two number one New York Times bestsellers: What Went Wrong? and Crisis of Islam. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years was a National Book Critics Circle Award finalist. Internationally recognized as the greatest historian of the Middle East, he received fifteen honorary doctorates and his books have been translated into more than twenty languages.
Its a very convoluted explanation about how the Ismaili movement started. The author gives contrasting and contradicting accounts from Sunni, Shia and Ismaili sources. There is ultimately no conclusion at the end, other than the name of a few important figures, but no clear understanding of the facts or history. Its more of a historiography than a history, explaining how the accounts of Sunni, Shia, and Ismaili were different from eachother, who borrowed from who, who took sources where, what may or may not have been fabricated, yadda yadda. Its quite academically dense as well, with Arabic vocabulary thrown in, so its definitely not intended for a normal reader.