Assassins

 

This phenomenon of the medieval Muslim world is well known in Europe. They came to court at the time of the heyday of orientalism in the XIX century. Overgrown with numerous legends. They became objects of mass culture in the XX and XXI centuries. One of their names migrated to English as a common name and denotes a political killer there. It is about this remarkable sect that our conversation today will be about.

Origins 

The history of Islam is a list of schisms, big and not so big. It all started in 632, when Muhammad, the Muslim prophet and founder of this religion, died. Inspired and united by the deceased Arabs, the main conquests and successes were still ahead. But first they had to overcome the first serious test – the division of inheritance. Immediately, the election of a caliph who would lead all Muslims began, and continued expansion. Not without intrigues, swearing and pressure, the Quraysh tribe won in this process – the first 4 caliphs were just one of them. The affairs of the last of them – Ali ibn Abu Talib – were not going very well. Numerous riots and civil wars finished him off – in 661, Talib was overthrown by Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan, a military commander who had recently conquered Byzantine Syria. Muawiya headed the Caliphate, founding the Umayyad dynasty. This was the beginning of the deepest and most ancient confrontation of the Islamic world – the struggle of Shiites and Sunnis. If the former fiercely hated the killers of the Taliban, the latter showed themselves to be political realists, and considered it good to join the winners. The cornerstone of the Shiite identity was the certainty that Muhammad appointed the Taliban as his successor – not even the first three caliphs. Sunnis, of course, believed otherwise: the caliph may not necessarily be a relative of Muhammad or the Taliban. Both sides referred to hadiths – recorded statements of Muhammad. Both of them understood and interpreted them in their own way - which made it possible to form the basis for a split for centuries and millennia. Further splits continued in all directions, but we are interested in Shiites. In the VIII century, they stepped on the same rake – they could not settle the issue of inheritance. In the course of another quarrel, the legitimate applicant for the inheritance of the title of Shiite imam, Ismail, was bypassed. He, of course, became the center of attraction for a group of discontented. And a few years later he died under mysterious circumstances. To many Shiites, all this vividly reminded the story of the murder of the Taliban. A new group broke away from the Shiites, called the Ismailis – in honor of either the murdered or self-deceased Ismail. But even this was not the end – at the end of the XI century, the Ismailis quarreled among themselves – the reason was ... yes, you guessed it, inheritance issues. After the civil war, the Ismailis split into followers of al-Mustali (Mustalites) and followers of Nizar – Nizarites. The latter are the assassins we know.

Assassins: The beginning 

It was difficult to call the first years of the Nizari state cloudless. The Persian community, led by Hassan ibn Sabbah, was persecuted by the Sunni Seljukids. A reliable base was needed – a center of operations that could not be taken without serious exertion of forces. It became Alamut – a strong mountain fortress on the territory of today's Iran. Advantageous location on the cliff, excellent observability of all approaches to the stronghold. Huge warehouses with provisions, a deep reservoir – this was not the only thing for which Alamut ibn Sabbah fell in love. Perhaps even more important was the population around the fortress – they were, for the most part, Ismailis. Inside the Alamut there was a Seljuk governor, but not a simple one, but inclined to Ismailism. In short, an ideal object for exposure. Ibn Sabbah could only thank Allah for such a gift – in 1090, the governor surrendered the fortress for a bribe of 3,000 dinars. This, however, was only the beginning – having received the base, the Nizarites immediately began to seize the surrounding settlements. And, most importantly, any more or less suitable fortresses. This, by the way, did not seem enough to them, and the assassins began to actively build their own. Hasan understood that sooner or later the Seljuks would sort out the current affairs and take him seriously. The occupation of each fortress in difficult mountain conditions complicated the task of defeating it. 

Survival strategy 

Ibn Sabbah was concerned about the survival of the community. He had no chance to defeat the Seljuks in a direct clash. If the enemy gathers his strength (which in the Middle Ages, however, could take quite a long time), the Nizarites will be crushed. Therefore, Hassan took a different path. First, he founded the doctrine of "Dawat-i-jadit" — "a call to a new faith." He used both the Shiite hatred of Sunnis and the Persian identity not completely dissolved by the Arabs. The Seljuks – outsiders and followers of the wrong current of Islam – had to be thrown out of Iran. And, thanks to the preachers of ibn Sabbah, this idea was supported by every inhabitant of the lands controlled by the Nizaris. Fanatical volunteers were recruited from this base. They were called "fidays" – that is, "donators". Properly handled by ibn Sabbah's preachers, they were ready to deliver suicidal blows. The willingness to die in the name of a just cause expanded the range of tactical possibilities – the fedayas did not need to think through the withdrawal, which simplified the organization of attacks. Moreover, according to ibn Sabbah's concept, the departure only harmed. His logic was simple: "We are entrenched in a mountainous region. It will not be possible to pick us off the move, so the enemy will need significant forces. They will need to be collected and provided with supplies for long sieges. All this will take time. And we will use it." And then the peculiarities of the Middle Ages dictated to ibn Sabbah an excellent way out. Unlike modern regular armies, in the feudal reality of the XI century, much more depended not only on the skills of the command staff, but also on authority. And the systematic elimination of commanders inflicted much more damage on the army than it does today. It was equally important to kill defiantly – in broad daylight, with a large crowd of people, despite the guards. The very fact that the assassin cared little about his own life, coupled with the fact that such murders occurred regularly, was a serious psychological blow. And even thoroughly prepared campaigns against the Nizarites either lost their striking power, or did not begin at all.

Already in 1092 ibn Sabbah tested his calculations in practice. Then the Seljuks staged a major campaign and besieged Alamut. Which cost the life of the sultan's vizier, as well as his two sons, who tried to take revenge. A month later, the Seljuk sultan died suddenly. If it was murder, it was definitely not in the style of the Nizarites – they preferred a demonstrative approach. The result, in any case, was a civil war in the Seljuk camp, and ibn Sabbah's sect was left behind. But many attributed the Sultan's death to the Nizarites. That only went to their advantage – because fear can always be turned into a weapon. The killings continued in broad daylight. The authority of the assassins increased, and soon any political assassination in the region began to be accepted for their activities. Which sharply reduced the desire of any "strong person" to climb into this hornet's nest at all.

Imaginary drug addicts 

Europe learned about the assassins from the stories of travelers. She was little interested in the complex mutual claims within the Muslim world. But the romanticized image of the Nizarites came "with a bang". Especially popular was the story about the "elder of the mountain", who recruited young people into his order and allegedly used hashish to show the neophytes the "gate to paradise". Those believed and were ready to inflict suicidal blows on those whom the "elder of the mountain" would show. Formed from "hashish", the word "hashshishin" was transformed into the European "assassin". All this, of course, is not so – regular use of hashish would make a member of the sect a pathetic drug addict, and not a murderer coldly waiting for the right moment. There is nothing about drugs either in Ismaili sources or in their Sunni enemies. Although the word "hashshishin" is most often found there. At the same time, the Seljuks themselves understood perfectly well that the Shiites, with their tradition of martyrdom dating back to the times of the Taliban, do not need hashish to sacrifice themselves en masse. Probably, the reference to this drug was a metaphor for the "outcast of society", which Sunnis tried to represent Nizaris, and not literal drug addicts. And for Europeans, all these subtleties were not as important as another beautiful myth in the piggy bank of orientalism.

The final 

The Nizari state has existed for more than two hundred years. For the Ismaili community in the midst of a stormy ocean of unfriendly forces, this is not just a lot, but a lot. Something absolutely ultimatum destroyed the assassins – something that much more powerful forces could not resist. This fate was the Mongols who destroyed the Nizari state in the middle of the XIII century. This invasion has greatly changed the region. The Assassins managed to survive as a religious group, but there was no place for a new state on the model of ibn Sabbah in this region.