Others said that his father was a Jew. Still others claimed he was a descendant of Dayṣān (1), the man who composed treatises in heresy. Another report relates that when al-Yasaʿ, the ruler of Sijilmāsa (2), realized that the balance of power had shifted, he went in and slaughtered the alleged Mahdī. Abū ʿAbd Allāh the Shīʿī then entered, found him lying dead with a servant beside him, brought the servant out, and declared to the people, “This is your Imām.” (3)
Scholarly investigators are unanimous that he was a pretender (4). Thus, when al-Muʿizz—one of their own—was asked by al-Sayyid ibn Ṭabāṭabā (5) about his lineage, he replied, “Tomorrow I will show it to you.” The following morning he flung down a large heap (6) of gold, drew half his sword from its scabbard, and said, “This is my ancestry,” after which he ordered them to plunder the gold, adding, “And this is my pedigree.” (7)
(1) See al-Fihrist, 474, and al-Milal wa-l-nihal, 1/250-251. One of the arguments advanced in support of the Fatimid lineage is that this Daysan lived and died about four centuries before the rise of the Ismaili daʿwa. The sect known as the Daysaniyya, one of the dualist movements, is named after him.
(2) A city in southern Morocco on the edge of the land of the Sudan, ten days’ travel from Fez.
(3) Wafayat al-aʿyan, 3/118.
(4) Genealogists and historians differ over the soundness of his pedigree, political antagonisms and doctrinal affiliations having become intertwined in their judgments. Among those who rejected the lineage are al-Baqillani and Ibn Khallikan; among its defenders, Ibn Khaldun and al-Maqrizi. See also the editor’s remarks in Iʿtiaz al-hunafaʾ, 41-42.
(5) He is Abu Muhammad, Abd Allah b. Ahmad b. Ali, a pious, generous and virtuous man who died in 348/959. A biographical notice appears in Wafayat al-aʿyan, 3/81-83.
(6) al-ʿarma (fully vocalized) literally denotes a sand-heap, but is used here for a pile of gold.
(7) A version of the report, with slight verbal variations, is found in Wafayat al-aʿyan, 3/82. Ibn Khallikan himself criticized it, summarizing his reservations as follows:
1. al-Muʿizz entered Egypt in 362/973, whereas the Ibn Tabataba mentioned here died in 348/959; how could the two have met?
2. The incident may instead have concerned Ibn Tabataba’s son.