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 19th century. Overgrown with numerous legends. They became objects of mass culture in the XX and XXI centuries. One of their names migrated into English as a common noun and designates a political assassin there. It is about this remarkable sect that our today's conversation will go.
Origins
The history of Islam is a list of schisms, large and small. It all started in 632, when Muhammad, the Muslim prophet and founder of this religion, died. Inspired and united by the departed Arabs, the main conquests and successes were still ahead. But at first they had to overcome the first serious test - the division of the inheritance.
The election of a caliph immediately began, who would lead all Muslims, and continued the expansion. Not without intrigue, abuse and pressure, the Quraysh tribe won in this process - the first 4 caliphs were just one of them. The last of them, Ali ibn Abu Talib, was not doing very well. Numerous riots and civil wars finished him - in 661 the Talib was overthrown by Mu'awiya ibn Abu Sufyan, a military leader who had recently conquered Byzantine Syria.
Muawiya led the Caliphate, founding the Umayyad dynasty. This was the beginning of the deepest and most ancient confrontation of the Islamic world - the struggle between Shiites and Sunnis. While the former vehemently hated the Taliban killers, the latter showed themselves to be political realists, and considered it good to join the winners.
The cornerstone of Shiite identity was the belief that Muhammad had appointed the Talib as his successor - not even the first three caliphs. The Sunnis, of course, thought differently: the caliph may not necessarily be a relative of Muhammad or Talib. Both sides referred to hadith - recorded sayings of Muhammad. Both those and those understood and interpreted them in their own way - which made it possible to form a basis for a split for centuries and millennia.
Further splits continued in all directions, but we are interested in the Shiites. In the VIII century, they stepped on the same rake - they could not resolve the issue of inheritance. In the course of the next quarrel, they bypassed the legitimate claimant to inherit the title of Shiite imam - Ismail. That, of course, became the center of attraction for a group of disaffected people. 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, calling itself the Ismailis - in honor of either the killed or independently deceased Ismail. But this was not the end - at the end of the 11th century, the Ismailis quarreled with each other - the reason was … yes, you guessed it, the issues of inheritance. After the civil war, the Ismailis split into the followers of al-Mustali (Mustalis) and the followers of Nizar - the Nizari. The latter are the assassins we know.
Assassins: the beginning
The first years of the Nizari state were difficult to call cloudless. The Persian community, led by Hasan ibn Sabbah, was persecuted by the Sunni Seljukids. A reliable base was required - a center of operations that could not be taken without a serious exertion of forces.
It was Alamut - a strong mountain fortress on the territory of today's Iran. Advantageous location on the cliff, excellent visibility 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 Alamut there was a Seljuk governor, but not a simple one, but inclined towards Ismailism. In short, an ideal object for impact. 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 a base, the Nizari immediately began to seize the surrounding settlements. And, most importantly, any more or less suitable fortress. By the way, this seemed to them a little, and the assassins began to actively build their own. Hasan understood that sooner or later the Seljuks would sort out their current affairs and take them seriously. The occupation of each fortress in difficult mountain conditions complicated the task of its defeat.
Survival strategy
Ibn Sabbah was concerned about the survival of the community. He had no chance of defeating 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 Nizari will be crushed. Therefore, Hasan took a different path.
First, he founded the doctrine of "Davat-i-jadit" - "a call to a new faith." He used both the Shiite hatred of the Sunnis and the Persian identity, which was not completely dissolved by the Arabs. The Seljuks - strangers and followers of the wrong trend of Islam - had to be kicked out of Iran. And, thanks to the preachers of Ibn Sabbah, this idea was supported by every inhabitant of the lands controlled by the Nizari.
Fanatical volunteers were recruited from this base. They were called "feedai" - that is, "sacrificers." Correctly handled by the preachers of Ibn Sabbah, they were ready to inflict suicidal blows. The willingness to die in the name of a just cause broadened the range of tactical possibilities - the feday did not need to think over the withdrawal, which simplified the organization of attacks.
Moreover, according to the concept of Ibn Sabbah, the retreat only harmed. His logic was simple: “We have dug in a mountainous region. It will not work to knock us out on 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 features of the Middle Ages dictated an excellent way out to Ibn Sabbah. Unlike modern regular armies, in the feudal reality of the 11th 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 today.
It was no less important to kill demonstratively - in broad daylight, in front of a large crowd of people, in spite of the guards. The very fact that the assassin cared little about his own life, coupled with the fact that such murders took place regularly, was a serious psychological blow. And even thoroughly prepared campaigns against the Nizari either lost their striking power, or did not start at all.
Hassan ibn Sabbah
Already in 1092, Ibn Sabbah tested his calculations in practice. Then the Seljuks staged a major campaign and laid siege to Alamut. That 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 this was a murder, it was definitely not in the style of the Nizari - they preferred a demonstrative approach. The result, in any case, was a civil war in the Seljuk camp, and the sect of Ibn Sabbah was left behind.
But many attributed the death of the Sultan to the Nizari. What only did them good - after all, 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. That drastically reduced the desire of any "strong person" to climb into this hornet's nest.
Imaginary drug addicts
Europe learned about the Assassins from the stories of travelers. She had little interest in complex mutual claims within the Muslim world. But the romanticized image of the Nizari 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 "gateway to paradise" to the neophytes. Those believed and were ready to inflict suicidal blows on those whom the "elder of the mountain" showed. The word “hashishin” formed from “hashish” was transformed into the European “assassin”.
All this, of course, is not so - the regular use of hashish would make a member of the sect a miserable addict, and not a coldly waiting for an opportunity to be a murderer. There is nothing about drugs either in Ismaili sources or in their Sunni enemies. Although the very word "hasshishin" is first encountered there.
At the same time, the Seljuks themselves perfectly understood that the Shiites, with their tradition of martyrdom dating back to the time of the Talib, did not need hashish to sacrifice themselves en masse. The reference to this drug was probably a metaphor for the "social outcast" that the Nizari were trying to use as Sunnis rather than literal drug addicts. And to Europeans, all these subtleties were not as important as another beautiful myth in the piggy bank of Orientalism.
Mongols storm Alamut
The final
The Nizari state existed for over 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. The assassins were ruined by something completely ultimatum - something that much more powerful forces could not resist. This fate was the Mongols, who destroyed the Nizari state in the middle of the 13th century. This invasion greatly changed the region. The Assassins managed to survive as a religious group, but there was no place for a new state like Ibn Sabbah in this region.
