Creed of the assassins

What was the medieval Nizari Ismaili vision of an ideal state?

The medieval Assassins have held an almost mythical place within the minds of casual Western observers. Their world is often portrayed as one of young initiates whipped into a religious and drug-fuelled frenzy, itching to plunge their knives into their leader’s enemies. This outlook is simply a combination of Crusader stories, traveller’s tales, and the black propaganda of the Assassins’ opponents – what Farhad Daftary terms the ‘Black Legend’1 – where all forms of diabolical crimes were laid at their door.
 
For many years Western scholars examined the Assassins – the Nizari Ismailis – by taking the sources of the ‘Black Legend’, Crusader accounts and traveller’s tales at face value. Unsurprisingly, they produced two-dimensional polemics that offered little by way of introducing a clear and concise appraisal of even basic Nizari Ismaili beliefs, let alone their vision of an ideal state. By the mid-Twentieth Century many of the enigmas surrounding the Assassins were finally unravelled by the work of scholars like Ivanow, Marshall and, a little later, Franzius and Lewis. More recent scholars, like Farhad Daftary, now make concerted efforts to keep the legends firmly separated from the fact.
 
Examining the mythology of the Nizari Ismailis and its wider impact goes beyond the scope this essay, as does an investigation of their offshoot branches in Syria and beyond. Analysing their religious beliefs – the core element within the heart of the Nizari Ismaili state – is the primary concern of this essay. We will begin by examining, as briefly as possible, the difficulties posed by the shortage of primary sources from the Nizari Ismaili perspective. We shall then discuss the evolution of Ismailism, charting its rise in North Africa and listing much of its central religious beliefs.
 
The essay will move on to examining the evolution of the Nizari Ismaili state, which, whilst scattered, had its physical and spiritual centre at Alamut, in northwest Persia. It was within this mountain stronghold that the major tenets of the Nizari Ismaili faith were structured, codified and then put into practise. For Nizari Ismailis the perfect state was essentially a realisation of the Resurrection through the esoteric message within Islam under the guidance of their infallible Imam. While the Imam’s line remained ‘hidden’ the Nizari Ismaili leadership acted as custodians of his state. However, in 1164 the head of the community, Hasan II, suddenly revealed to his followers that the Imam had returned and that the Resurrection had arrived. The Nizari Ismailis vision of the ideal state had suddenly materialised. 
 

Through the fragments
The Nizari Ismaili community that flourished from the 1080s to 1250s was eventually obliterated by the Mongols. Nizari Ismaili strongholds were smashed to rubble, and their libraries and literature thrown onto pyres, creating major difficulties for the modern-day scholar. Enno Franzius hit the nail on the head when he wrote: ‘A historian of the Assassins encounters three major difficulties: hostility of the main sources to the Assassins, mystification or concealment of facts by the Assassin sources, and reluctance of today’s Assassins to impart information.’2
 
The Nizari Ismaili texts that do survive are also difficult to put into proper context; Marshall Hodgson wrote in the 1950s: ‘The voluminous writings of the Alamut imams are mostly lost; what we possess, either in Arabic or Persian, is very miscellaneous, and often of unknown authorship.’3 That said, the Biography of Our Master, a biographical work on Hasan Sabbah, the ‘founding father’ of the Nizari Ismailis, is thought to have survived well into the Ilkhanid era and was often quoted as a key source by the chroniclers.4 Also surviving, in fragments, is a spiritual treatise by Hasan Sabbah, The Four Chapters, on the value of submitting to the authoritative teaching of the Imam – talim.

But most of our understanding of core Nizari Ismaili beliefs of the era comes from the work of ‘the great betrayer of the sect’,5 Nasir as-Din Tusi (d.1274). Writing in the twilight years of the Nizari Ismaili community at Alamut, Tusi produced a number of key works outlining Nizari Ismaili thought on ‘astronomy, theology, philosophy and many other subjects’.6 Although born a ‘Twelver’ Shi’a, Tusi spent over thirty years with the Nizari Ismailis and was there when Alamut was handed over to the Mongol commander Hulegu in 1256. He went on to become a member of Hulegu’s court, insisting that he had been kept at Alamut against his will and forcibly converted, although, as Daftary points out, this is highly unlikely.7
 
Also at the fall of Alamut, but accompanying the invading forces, was the staunch anti-Ismaili chronicler Juwayni (d.1283). After the stronghold’s surrender, he was given a free hand to rummage through its renowned library, taking away those books he deemed acceptable or useful for his propaganda purposes.8 On the heels of Juwayni’s account came Rashid al-Din’s (d.1318) and then Kashani’s (d.1337), both of whom were Sunni and anti-Ismaili. Later chroniclers, such as Hafiz Abru (d.1430), also included sections in their texts on the Nizari Ismailis.9
 

Ismaili heritage
Having noted the paucity of Nizari Ismaili sources available and having acquainted ourselves with the inherent bias of some of the main chroniclers, we can begin to explore a number of the central religious components of Ismailism. This is a fundamental exercise if we are to fully appreciate the ideal Nizari Ismaili state. Put simply, the Nizari Ismailis inherited most, if not all, of their core beliefs from the Ismailis of North Africa, the Fatimids*. 
* They claimed a lineage back to Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter and wife of Ali

Ismaili roots are Shi’a and – as is relatively well known – they believe not only in the literal message of the Prophet, but also in the esoteric and hidden meanings of Islam. According to the Shi’a, Muhammad had singled out Ali and his line as the rightful heirs to his message shortly before his death in 632. Daftary writes: ‘For the Shi’a, only the sinless and infallible Alid imams, belonging to the ahl al-bayt and possessing special religious knowledge or ilm were qualified to perform the spiritual functions of such guides or teachers.’10 Franzius’ work concurs: ‘They and they alone are qualified to interpret, elucidate, and apply the profundities of the Koran.’11
 
In practise, the Imamah٭ was usually passed to the eldest son of the Imam, although he was free to choose any other of his offspring should this prove impractical or undesirable. The Imam usually chose his intended successor early on in the life of his religious heir, extending to him his spiritual essence – his nass. Once made, the decision was irreversible. In times of grave crisis (i.e. the murder of Imams and their line by their enemies) the inheritance of the Imamah could occur spiritually. As Buckley notes, ‘spiritual lineage sometimes took precedence over blood-ties. A special power in the Imam-soul was thought to transmigrate to the Imam heir.’12 On the death of the Imam, his spirit would immediately transpose into his successor. Thus within the Imam reposed the souls of all past Imams. In essence, he was spiritually immortal.

٭ The office of Imam.13
 
Almost one hundred years after Ali’s death,* the sixth Shi’a Imam, Jafar (of Ali’s line via Husain), broke with the conventions of transferring the Imamah. Disregarding his eldest son, Ismail, who had already received the nass, Jafar chose a younger son, Musa, to become the next Imam. It has been alleged that Ismail was both a drunk and in contact with extremist Shi’a groups, which was why he was overlooked. But despite his foibles, Ismail’s supporters were adamant that, having received the nass of Jafar, he should become Imam. They broke away from the majority of the Shi’a community who supported Musa’s ascendancy.
* Ali was murdered in 661
 
Ismail predeceased his father, dying around 760+, with the latter dying in 765. Ismail’s son, Muhammad, went on to become the Ismaili Imam, although he died a captive of the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid a number of years later. After Muhammad, the Ismaili Imams are said to have gone into hiding, their message and underground networks charged with spreading their word and gaining support wherever they could find it. In 893, an agent of the Ismaili Imam – a Yemeni called Abu Abdallah al-Shi’i – arrived in North Africa and rallied the Berber tribes to the Ismaili cause. Following a series of victorious conquests, the Ismailis came to dominate most of the North African coast, including Egypt by the 960s.

+ Although some accounts suggest he was still alive some five years after Jafar's death

Having declared the Ismaili Imamate and Caliphate, the new regime, the Fatimids, pushed their borders eastwards from their new capital at Cairo. Under the Imam/Caliph Muiz, the Fatimid Empire took control of Damascus, Jerusalem and parts of Western Arabia, including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. It was at this point that the Fatimids halted their advance in order to consolidate their position.

Developing their Shi’a foundations, the Ismailis deemed their Imam an eternal presence,14 whose divinely-appointed duty was to guide the Ismailis towards God and the Truth – haqiqah.15 Adding to this, Franzius tells us that the Imam ‘is the earthly focus of their entire religious life, for only through him can they obtain a knowledge of God.’16 The mundane physical world and its day-to-day affairs were of secondary concern for the Imam, who, in the words of Anthony Campbell, was a ‘beacon of light that shines amid the darkness of materiality’.17

According to the Iran Chamber Society, the Ismailis viewed the religious world as ‘a shell; to get at its kernel of meaning the shell must be penetrated by ta’wil [returning to the source of deepest spiritual significance], and in fact broken open completely’.18 In searching for the Truth it was still important to mark and accrue the benefits of observing the outward letter of the law (zahir and the shari’a). The Imam who brought the community to God’s Truth would be known as the qa’im al-qiyama, the Lord of the Resurrection.19 For Nizari Ismailis the Resurrection was to be the supreme moment, when ‘the soul achieves the highest wisdom [and] is assimilated by the Loftiest Wisdom of the Universe, an eternal substance of divine origin. Thereby the soul is absorbed by God, its original course.’20This then was the Ismaili vision of the ideal state: a community at union with the Truth of God, brought to the celestial heights through the spiritual guidance and teaching of the Imam.
 
The Fatimids established great schools of learning and a theological organisation known as the da’wa, which was charged with the training Ismaili teachers, da’is. The da’is would then spread the Imam’s message within and without the boundaries of their Empire.

Treading a fine tightrope when outside Fatimid territory, da’is were always on the look out for bright youngsters to take under their wing and, if they proved intelligent enough, have sent to Cairo for further religious education.
 

Persian fire
Of Turkic origin, the Seljuks came to dominate the remaining vestiges of ‘decrepit Abbasid Khalifate’21 during the first half of the eleventh century, eventually taking control of Baghdad in 1055. While they were securing their empire, Hasan Sabbah was born in the town of Qummcirca 1050. He was the son of a ‘Twelver’ Shi’a merchant but had converted to Ismailism in his teens after a near fatal illness. In 1072 he made his way to the town of Rayy and was introduced to the leading da’i of the region, Abd al-Malik ibn Attash who was greatly impressed by the young man and decided to have him sent to Cairofor further instruction.

Hasan Sabbah arrived in the Fatimid capital in 1078, having taken a rather long and circuitous journey through many key Seljuk territories on what may well have been an intelligence-gathering mission.22 On his arrival, Hasan Sabbah must have been dismayed by the decline of the Fatimid Empire. The lands east of the Sinai had been lost to Seljuk lords, while Egypt was still recovering from fearsome droughts suffered during the late 1060s and early 1070s. The Imam/Caliph, the long-reigning Mustansir, was now a puppet of his vizier Badr al-Jamali (an Armenian), who commanded the armies – dominated by the Turkish slave-soldiery – and was in control of the da’wa. This last point must have been particularly galling for the Ismaili faithful as the da’wa should have been under the direct jurisdiction of the Imam.
 
Having studied in Egypt, Hasan Sabbah returned to his native Persiain 1081 under a dark cloud: he had become persona non grata with al-Jamali. It is said that Hasan Sabbah was arrested as an undesirable but managed to make a daring escape back to his homelands. Whether this actually happened or not, he returned toPersia still keen to spread the spiritual authority of the Fatimid Imam, although he must have been aware that the Imam/Caliph’s physical authority was haemorrhaging fast. As Daftary points out, Hasan Sabbah gained a ‘valuable opportunity to evaluate at close hand the conditions of the Fatimid regime, becoming aware of the fact that the Persian Ismailis could no longer count on receiving any effective support from the Fatimid state.’23 Because of this, Hasan Sabbah was forced to look for a Persian solution in creating the ideal Ismaili state.
 
In the 1080s Hasan Sabbah began a period of criss-crossing Persiaworking as a da’i and formulating the template for revolutionary Persian Ismailism. It is probably not too much of an assumption to say that Hasan Sabbah was adapting the Ismaili spiritual message to tie in closely with Persian sentiments and proto-nationalist tendencies. The Seljuk lords, although Turkic, were nonetheless Sunnis, the majority sect that dominated dissipated Caliphs in Baghdad, another non-Persian force that had influence and, therefore created, resentment within the region.

Daftary declares that Hasan Sabbah’s updated message* was almost a prototype independence movement for Persians, particularly for those already exposed to the Shi’a message. ‘Hasan’s revolt was an expression of Persian “national” sentiments, which accounts for its early popular appeal and widespread success in Persia.’24 During this period, Hasan Sabbah and his lieutenants had great success in forging a powerbase in the barren and mountainous region of Daylam in northwest Persia, across from the Caspian Sea. As a region ‘it was renowned as an area with strong independent tendencies.’25Hasan Sabbah’s Ismailism allowed its followers to belong to a Persian-run, Persian-dominated sect, while also granting them the opportunity to attain God’s Truth through the power of the Imam. It was a powerful and appealing combination.
* What has become known as the ‘New Preaching’ (al-da’wa al-jadida) rather than the Fatimids' ‘Old Preaching’ (al-da’wa al-qadima) 26

It is difficult to quantify the level of people involved. Many may have become Ismaili but kept their beliefs hidden, particularly those living in more urban areas – for it is was in the towns and cities that the suspicious eyes of the authorities were particularly focussed. We can safely say, however, that Hasan Sabbah’s* preaching must have popular, for he was soon able to start attacking a number of key Seljuk strongholds. In September 1090, Ismaili followers successfully took, by subterfuge, the mountain fortress of Alamut, located in the region of Rudbar. Hasan Sabbah was now lord of a major stronghold, with more being added to his fledgling realm over the next decade.

*By the 1090s Hasan Sabbah had become the figurehead of the community, eclipsing Abd al-Malik ibn Attash

Stung by the success of the Ismailis, the Seljuks lashed out and unleashed pogroms in the major regional towns, killing Ismailis and those suspected of Ismailism. From this perspective, the war for the Persian Ismailis was a total one and it says a great deal for Hasan Sabbah and his lieutenants’ abilities that their community continued to achieve successes, particularly in the region of Quhistan, another area where the Shi’a message had already found fertile support. And given the overwhelming dangers they faced, and that their enemies vastly outnumbered them, it comes as no surprise that the Persian Ismailis used the assassin's methods to kill opponents considered their greatest threat. For the Persian Ismailis, the ideal state at this stage, we can presume, was probably one of survival while adhering to the main tenets of the Ismaili faith.
 

Revolution and schism 
By the time of Hasan Sabbah’s death in 1124, the battle for survival had been won and a fragile stalemate with the enemies of the community had been reached. Also of vital importance was the decisive break with the Fatimids.
 
The great Ismaili split between the Fatimids and Hasan Sabbah’s camp occurred in 1094. Nizar, the son and designated heir of the Imam/Caliph Mustansir, was disinherited on his father’s death by the vizier al-Afdal (son of al-Jamali) in favour of Mustali, a younger son. Given the importance of the chosen successor’s right to become Imam, it is no surprise to find that Hasan Sabbah and the Persian Ismailis severed their ties with the Fatimids, who were now viewed as schismatics following a false Imam. It is worth noting that the Persian Ismailis, who were to become known as Nizari Ismailis, or Nizaris, still preferred to be called Ismailis after the schism, believing that they were the ones following the true faith.27

Misfortune struck for the supporters of Nizar when he was quickly captured by al-Afdal and then murdered along with key members of his household. In Persia many believed that Nizar had somehow escaped, or that his chosen offspring had done so. Some believed that even if Nizar’s line was physically destroyed it had instantly returned to the world via spiritual descent. 
 
But with no Imam now physically present it became important for Hasan Sabbah to increase his powerbase as community figurehead to prevent either disillusionment or infighting. Thus he emphasised the importance of unreserved loyalty and the strict observance of the shari’a. This stance is reflected in the preserved sections of Hasan Sabbah’s The Four Chapters. Hodgson, in his critique of the work, wrote: ‘We receive the psychological impression that it is finally not the rational content of the Imam’s truth that Hasan is interested in, but his sheer authority.’28 But perhaps it might be more accurate to add the following caveat: that Hasan Sabbah was interested in ‘sheer authority’ in order to create a state worthy for the expected Imam – either Nizar or his scion – who was expected to take control once he deemed it fit to reveal himself. To do this, Hasan Sabbah needed to impose unrelenting discipline upon his followers. 
 
During this dangerous and seemingly rudderless age, Hasan Sabbah led by example, as Farhad Daftary points out: ‘[He was] highly uncompromising in his austere lifestyle. It is reported that he observed the shari’a strictly.’29 Indeed, Hasan Sabbah even had both his sons executed: one for involvement in a murder (later he was proven innocent) and the other for drinking wine.
 

The Resurrection
No other event in Nizari Ismaili history has aroused as much debate and discussion as that of the Resurrection – the Qiyama, or the Last Day.30 After his death, Hasan Sabbah was peacefully succeeded by his most able commander, Buzurg Umid and the fight against the Seljuks gradually receded in intensity.* A lengthy period of religious introversion then began, culminating in the Resurrection as declared by Hasan II and clarified by his successor Muhammad II. 
* Although they did not cease, assassinations of Seljuk enemies fell off dramatically after Hasan Sabbah’s death
 
Two years into his reign (in 1164) Hasan II, grandson of Buzurg Umid, called for the leading members of his community to assemble at Alamut. On the 17th day of Ramadan (the anniversary of Ali’s death no less) the eminent assembly gathered in front of a pulpit at the foot of the castle with their backs to Mecca. The implication of this unusual arrangement was soon made clear. Hasan II approached the throng, sword in hand and dressed all in white. He ascended the pulpit and delivered a message, part of which, according to Rashid al-Din, went as follows: ‘The Imam of our time has sent you his blessing and his compassion, and has called you his special chosen servants. He has freed you from the burden of the rules of Holy Law, and has brought you to the Resurrection.’31 Hasan II then had a message (which he declared had come directly from the Imam), read aloud in Arabic. Translated immediately into Persian, it stated that Hasan II was the proof of the Imam’s existance, the appointed teacher and also khalifa ‘deputy or successor with plenary authority, a higher rank yet that was not defined at the time’.32

In announcing the Resurrection, Hasan II became the Qaim, who was, according to Lewis, the ‘dominating figure in Ismaili eschatology’.33The message also underlined the Imam’s wish that Hasan II should be followed as if he were in fact the Imam himself. Hasan II then called for his followers to join him in a banquet, contravening the strictures of Ramadan.

Historians have devoted much space to discussing how the Qiyama represented a new policy of isolationism and an acceptance that the revolutionary goal of destroying the Seljuk state had failed. According to Campbell, for example, the Resurrection ‘was a magnificent answer to the failure of a military undertaking’.34 But perhaps a better way to consider the Nizari Ismaili view of the Sunni world at this stage was one of detachment, best summed up by Hodgson, who simply wrote: ‘The Ismailis seemed not to care what the Sunnis did.’35 The Nizari Ismailis had probably recognised long beforehand, even as early as the last years of Hasan Sabbah’s rule, that their effort to sweep away the Seljuks and dominate Persia had been thwarted.

In our study of the Nizari Ismailis’ concept of ideal state, the importance of the Resurrection lies in two other key areas. Firstly, the Imam was now in communication with the community via Hasan II. Given that they had been praying to the anonymous progeny of Nizar for so long, Hasan II’s message must have come as a great relief. Secondly, and more amazingly still, the time of Resurrection had been declared – an astounding revelation and realisation for Nizari Ismailis, who suddenly found that their vision of the ideal state, of spiritual union with God via the Imam, had materialised.
 
It should be noted that Resurrection for the Nizari Ismailis was not a spectacular earthly event as envisaged in the traditional Islamic Day of Judgement, which would be ‘a terrible summons that will usher the final retribution of God upon the sins of the human race’.36 It was, as Farhad Daftary points out, ‘[in the] esoteric sense that the Nizaris celebrated the end of earthly life.’37
 
The Imam was now informing his community that he had unlocked the gates to the Truth – haqiqa – the deepest esoteric analysis of Islam.38Celestial time and motion had also ground to a halt; the Age of the Prophets, starting with Adam, was now over. The Imam had also freed his people from the shari’a, the laws which belonged to the Age of the Prophets. This explains why Hasan II arranged for his audience to have their backs turned away from Mecca and why, after they had heard his message, they willingly joined their leader in the banquet. Hasan II soon decreed that to adhere to the shari’a, now that the Imam had returned his community to the spiritual core of God, was to be punishable in exactly the same way as those who failed to observe it before the Qiyama.

Success followed by failure
Overall, the Nizari Ismaili community received Hasan II’s proclamation eagerly. In most major Nizari Ismaili strongholds the ceremony of the Resurrection was re-enacted, the regional leaders emphasising their roles as representative of Hasan II. And it was not long before many began to consider Hasan II as the Imam*. Campbell writes: ‘Hasan does not seem to have claimed that he himself was the Imam, though he apparently did so later, or at least allowed it to be tacitly assumed.’39

According to Lewis, Hasan II was more assertive in claiming to be the Imam. He is said to have ‘circulated writings in which he said that, while outwardly he was the son of Buzurgumid, in the esoteric reality he was the Imam of the time’.40 Lewis adds: ‘It is possible that, as some have argued, Hasan was not claiming physical descent from Nizar…but a kind of spiritual filiation.’41 Unfortunately for Hasan II, there was a very small minority within the community that was unhappy with his declaration of the Resurrection and the thought of him as Imam. He was murdered by a dissident in 1166 and succeeded by his son, Muhammad II. 
* Although it is recorded that many in Alamut considered him Imam before his ascension to leadership.
 
During his long and relatively peaceful reign both Muhammad II and his father were firmly recognised as Imams. The policies of the Qiyama were codified and became part and parcel of everyday Nizari Ismaili life. The ideal state, however, was disrupted by Hasan III, who succeeded his father in 1210 and made a sudden religious volte-face, ordering a return to the shari’a and also a rapprochement with his Seljuk neighbours.
 
There are those who view Hasan III’s actions as a punishment upon his community for its failure to live up to the blessings of the Qiyama. Others, such as Farhad Daftary, suggest Hasan III’s decisions were based on the frustration of not being able to interact with the world on a larger scale. Hasan III, wrote Daftary, ‘wearied of the isolation of the Nizari community from the outside world; he desired to establish better relations with Sunni Muslims and their rulers’.42 
 
Others have suggested that Hasan III sought a thawing in relations with the Sunni world because his mother was a Sunni and that she had swayed him to follow her religious beliefs. Others still believe his behaviour was due to a complex strategy of realpolitik. But Campbell pours cold water on this idea, writing: ‘It is certainly possible that Hasan was playing a complicated game, merely pretending to be a good Sunni for political reasons, but if so he was extremely thorough about it.’43

Altogether, the reign of Hasan III marked something of a dismal end for Hasan II’s Qiyama and the previous generations’ vision of an ideal state. After Hasan III’s death in 1221, the community returned to marking some of the Resurrectional practises, but did so in an almost nostalgic, half-remembered form.44 However, it is worth remembering that there was not much room to manoeuvre for the community to influence religious policy, which was, of course, the preserve of the Imam. Sadly, for the Nizari Ismailis, their final Imams were often weak and contrary rulers who offered little by the way of firm religious policies.
 

Flawed vision 
Overall, the ideal vision Nizari Ismaili state was compromised from its inception: Hasan Sabbah and his followers had to try and dovetail core Ismaili beliefs with the practicalities of living in an imperfect and hostile world. Perhaps their greatest difficulty was the attempt to reconcile the obvious failures of the Fatimid Imam/Caliphs with the call for strict subservience to the authority of the Imam.
 
With the schism of 1094 Hasan Sabbah no longer had to act as an apologist for the Fatimid Imam/Caliphs’ striking weaknesses and could move ahead with creating a state as he saw fit. However, the ‘disappearance’ of Nizar and his chosen line was extremely problematic. Without the Imam physically present, the Nizari Ismaili state found itself further from its vision of unity with God through his authoritative teaching. It says a great deal for the leadership of Hasan Sabbah that he managed to maintain control and steer his community through these very rough times. 
 
Hasan II’s declaration of the Resurrection marked the end of the ‘custodial’ state: the Imam had returned; the Age of Prophets had closed; and the Nizari Ismaili community had been taken by the Imam into God’s Truth. Possibly no other religious community has ever experienced such an instantaneous and wondrous confirmation of their religious desires and beliefs.
 
Unfortunately, the ideal vision of the Nizari Ismaili state could not be upheld. By Hasan III’s reign, the joy of the Resurrection must have become muted enough for their leader, for whatever reason, to seek a thawing in relations with his Sunni neighbours. After Hasan III’s reign, the Nizari Ismailis lacked the strong religious guidance that the community needed to maintain its unity and drive. Indeed, the succeeding Imams all suffered from the common weaknesses and eccentricities that can affect any normal human being. It is something of a tragic irony then, that submission to the authority of the Imams, a vital component in the vision of the ideal Nizari Ismaili state, led directly towards the community’s own Götterdämmarung.
 
With absolute authority invested in his hands, the last Imam of Alamut, Rukn al-Din, attempted to appease the Mongols, ordering his domains and castles to surrender to their armies without fighting. Having performed this task, he was quickly deemed superfluous to Mongol requirements. In 1257, less than a year after handing over Alamut, Rukn al-Din was kicked to death by enemy soldiers: the dreams of the ideal Nizari state snuffed out with the passing on of his eternal spirit. 
 
 

References
 
1)      Daftary, Farhad, The Assassin Legends (I.B. Taurus, 1994), p.5
 
2) Franzius, Enno, History of the Order Assassins (Funk & Wagnalls, 1969), p.ix
 
3) Hodgson, G.S., The Order of Assassins: the struggle of the early Nizari Isma’ilis against the Islamic world (University of Chicago, 1955), p.29
 
4) Daftary, Farhad, Ismailis in Medieval Muslim Society (I.B. Taurus, 2005), p.123
 
5) Hodgson, G.S., The Order of Assassins: the struggle of the early Nizari Isma’ilis against the Islamic world, p.30
 
6) Daftary, Farhad, A short history of the Ismailis (Edinburgh University Press, 1998), p148
 
7) Ibid
 
8) Daftary, Farhad, The Assassin Legends, p.114
 
9) Ibid, Ismailis in Medieval Muslim Society, p.127
 
10) Ibid, A short history of the Ismailis, p.132
 
11) Franzius, Enno, History of the Order Assassins, p.26
 
12) Buckley, Jorunn J., The Nizari Ismailites’ Abolishment of the Shar’ia during the ‘Great Resurrection’ of 1164 A.D./559 A.H., Studia Islamica, No.60. (1984), p.139
 
13) Geaves, Ron, Key Words in Islam (Continuum Books, 2006) p.47
 
14) Franzius, Enno, History of the Order Assassins, p.82
 
15) Iran Chamber, www.iranchamber.com/history.ismailieh/ismailieh.php, (01/02/07)
 
16) Franzius, Enno, History of the Order Assassins, p.83 
 
17) Campbell, Anthony, The Assassins of Alamut, www.iranchamber.com/ismailieh/books/the_assassins_

of_alamut.pdf (06/02/07), p.68
 
18) Iran Chamber, www.iranchamber.com/history.ismailieh/ismailieh.php, (01/02/07)
 
19) Bartlett, W.B., Assassins: The story of Medieval Islam’s Secret Sect (Sutton Publishing, 2007), p.92
 
20) Franzius, Enno, History of the Order Assassins, p.83 
 
21) Ibid, p.17
 
22) Ibid, p.23
 
23) Daftary, Farhad, Ismailis in Medieval Muslim Society, p.129
 
24) Ibid, A short history of the Ismailis, p.131
 
25) Bartlett, W.B., Assassins: The story of Medieval Islam’s Secret Sect, p.49 
 
26) Daftary, Farhad, Ismailis in Medieval Muslim Society, p.140
 
27) Saleh, Shakib, The use of Batini, Fida’i and Hashishi, Studia Islamica, 1995/2 (October 1982), p.37
 
28) Hodgson, G.S., The Order of Assassins: the struggle of the early Nizari Isma’ilis against the Islamic world,p.59
 
29) Daftary, Farhad, Ismailis in Medieval Muslim Society, p.131
 
30) Ibid, The Assassin Legends, p.41
 
31) Lewis, Bernard, The Assassins (Al Saqi Books, 1985), p.72
 
32) Daftary, Farhad, A short history of the Ismailis, p138
 
33) Lewis, Bernard, The Assassins, p.74
 
34) Campbell, Anthony, The Assassins of Alamut, p.28
 
35) Hodgson, G.S., The Order of Assassins: the struggle of the early Nizari Isma’ilis against the Islamic world,p.178
 
36) Geaves, Ron, Key Words in Islam (Continuum Books, 2006) p.87
 
37) Daftary, Farhad, A short history of the Ismailis, p.139
 
38) Ibid, p.142
 
39) Campbell, Anthony, The Assassins of Alamut, p.23
 
40) Lewis, Bernard, The Assassins, p.74
 
41) Ibid
 
42) Daftary, Farhad, A short history of the Ismailis, p145
 
43) Campbell, Anthony, The Assassins of Alamut, p.45
 
44) Bartlett, W.B., Assassins: The story of Medieval Islam’s Secret Sect, p.185
 
 
 
Bibliography
 

Primary sources
 
Ibn-Munqidh, Usâmah, (trans. Hitti, Philip K), An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Usâmah Ibn-Munqidh (I.B. Tauris, 1987)
 

Secondary sources
 
Ahmed, Akbar S., Islam Today: A short introduction to the Muslim World (I.B. Tauris, 2001)
 
Armstrong, Karen, Islam, A Short History (Phoenix, 2001)
 
Bartlett, W.B., Assassins: The story of Medieval Islam’s Secret Sect(Sutton Publishing, 2007)
 
Buckley, Jorunn J., The Nizari Ismailites’ Abolishment of the Shar’ia during the ‘Great Resurrection’ of 1164 A.D./559 A.H., Studia Islamica, No.60. (1984), pp.137-165
 
Campbell, Anthony, The Assassins of Alamut, www.iranchamber.com/ismailieh/books/the_assassins

_of_alamut.pdf (06/02/07)
 
Daftary, Farhad, The Assassin Legends (I.B. Taurus, 1994)
 
Idem, A short history of the Ismailis (Edinburgh University Press, 1998)
 
Idem, Ismailis in Medieval Muslim Society (I.B. Taurus, 2005) 
 
Franzius, Enno, History of the Order Assassins (Funk & Wagnalls, 1969)
 
Geaves, Ron, Key Words in Islam (Continuum Books, 2006)
 
Hallam, Elizabeth, Chronicles of the Crusades: Eye-witness accounts of the wars between Christianity and Islam (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989)
 
Hamawi, Khodr, www.amaana.org/articles/hamwawi1.htm, (24/02/07)
 
Hodgson, G.S., The Order of Assassins: the struggle of the early Nizari Isma’ilis against the Islamic world (University of Chicago, 1955)
 
Iran Chamber, www.iranchamber.com/history.ismailieh/

ismailieh.php, (01/02/07)
 
Idem, Hasan i  Sabbah, www.iranchamber.com (01/02/07)
 
Idem, www.iranchamber.com/calendar/iranian_

calendar_convertor.php (01/02/07)
 
Iqbal, Muhammad, Sayyidna Hasan Bin Sabbah, www.amaana.org(24/02/07)
 
Ivanow, W, Brief survey of the evolution of Ismailism (Ismaili Society, 1952)
 
Idem, The importance of studying Ismailism, www.amaana.org(24/02/07)
 
Lewis, Bernard, The Assassins (Al Saqi Books, 1985)
 
Man, John, Kublai Khan (Bantum Books, 2007)
 
Meherally, Akbarally, Understanding Ismailism: A Unique Tariqah of Islam (A.M. Trust, 1988)
 
Nowell, Charles E., The Old Man of the Mountain, Speculum, Vol.22, No.4. (October, 1947), pp.497-519
 
Ridley, F.A., The Assassins (F.A. Ridley, n.d. [circa 1935?])
 
Sardar, Ziauddin, What do Muslims believe? (Granta Books, 2006)
 
Saleh, Shakib, The use of Batini, Fida’i and Hashishi, Studia Islamica, 1995/2 (October 1982)
 
Saunders, J.J., A History of Medieval Islam (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965)  
 
Virani, Shafique N., The Eagle Returns: Evidence of continues Ismaili activity at Alamut and in the South Caspian region following the Mongol Conquests, Journal of American Oriental Society, Vol.123, No.2, (April-June, 2003), pp.351-370
 
Stacey, Vivienne, Submitting to God: Introducing Islam (Hodder & Stoughton, 1997)
 
Von Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph, (trans. Wood, Oswald C) The History of the Assassins, first published in 1835 (Burt Franklin, 1968)
 
www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/alamut/hitti_Ass.html,

(01/02/07)

RETURN TO INTRODUCTION

Gone but not forgotten

A 15th Century Persian minature depicts the entry of the Mongol army into Alamut, preparing to crush the heart of the Nizari Ismaili community. By the time this image was created, Alamut lay in ruins, the events at this castle already taking on a semi-mythical status. 

'The voluminous writings of the Alamut imams are mostly lost; what we possess, either in Arabic or Persian, is very miscellaneous, and often of unknown authorship'

Marshall Hodgson

Leading from the front

Hasan Sabbah depicted in a rather fanciful 19th Century print. The leader of the Nizari Ismailis demanded strict obedience as he created a state worthy for the Imam to take control of.