Salamia, the city of Syria had been an original plant for
Ismaili mission since pre-Fatimid period. During the Fatimid Caliphate, the
Ismaili mission remained active in Syria. Later on, the Syrian Ismailis
accepted the Imamate of al-Nizar during Alamut rule. Al-Hakim al-Munajjim Asad
bin Kassim al-Ajami, the physician astrologer was the first Nizari dai to have
come from Alamut to Aleppo. Bernard Lewis writes in 'A History of the Crusades'
(ed. Kenneth M. Setton, London, 1st vol., p. 111) that, 'The leaders (chief
dais) as far as they are known to us were all Persians, sent from Alamut and
operating under the orders of al-Hasan ibn-as-Sabbah and his successors.'
Al-Munajjim was able to generate his friendship with the
Seljuq ruler Ridwan bin Tutus, who allowed the propagation of the Nizari
Ismailis in Aleppo. A few years earlier in 490/1097, the Fatimid vizir al-Afdal
had sent a messenger to Ridwan with lavish gifts and an offer to provision,
equip, and enlarge his army if he would change allegiance from the Sunnite
Abbasid caliph in Baghdad to the Shiite Fatimid caliph of Egypt. Robert W.
Crawford writes in 'Ridwan the Maligned' (London, 1960, p. 138) that, 'Ridwan
accepted in principle and the khutba was changed in Aleppo on Friday, August
18, 1097, and was read in the name of al-Musta'li of Egypt followed by the
names of al-Afdal and Ridwan.' He however recognised the suzerainty of the
Fatimids only for four weeks. Soon afterwards, he permitted the Nizari Ismaili
dais to use Aleppo as base for their activities, and also helped them to build
a mission house (darul dawa). In sum, Ridwan had not scrupled to proclaim
Fatimid allegiance for a short time when it suited him. In the lax religious
atmosphere of the time, he had no hesitation in supporting the Ismailis when it
seemed expedient. Another tradition relates that dai al-Munajjim had embraced
Ismailism in Aleppo, where he recited the khutba of the Imams of Alamut. He
however died in 496/1103.
The next dai in succession was Abu Tahir al-Saigh, the
goldsmith; who had been deputed from Alamut in the time of dai al-Munajjim. He
also cemented close ties with Ridwan, and helped him during the Crusades. He
captured the fort of Afamiya in south of Aleppo on 24th Jamada I, 499/February
3, 1106, whose Arab chief, Khalaf bin Mulaib al-Ashhabi (1089-1106) had seized
the town from Ridwan on 8th Zilkada, 489/October 28, 1096. Afamiya was the
first Nizari Ismaili stronghold in Syria, but was short-lived. In 500/1106, a certain
Musbih bin Mulaib urged Tancred (d. 506/1112), the Frankish prince of Antioch,
to seize the fort of Afamiya. Tancred had already occupied the surrounding
districts, therefore, he marched thither, encamped before the town and
blockaded it. He lifted his initial siege in return of a tribute from the
Ismailis. Tancred returned and forced Afamiya to surrender on 13th Muharram,
500/September 14, 1106. Abu Tahir and a number of his associates managed to
ransom themselves from captivity and returned to Aleppo. This was most probably
the first encounter between the Ismailis of Syria and the Crusaders. In
504/1110, the Ismailis lost Kafarlatha to Tancred, in the Jabal as-Summaq. In
Aleppo, Abu Tahir was in search of suitable stronghold. In 505/1111, Mawdud, the
Seljuq ruler of Mosul came with his army to fight the Crusaders, Ridwan closed
the gates of Aleppo, and the armed groups of the Ismailis rallied to Ridwan's
side. Ridwan however, seems to have retracted from his pro-Ismaili position in
his final years. In 505/1111, an unsuccessful attempt on the life of a certain
Abu Harb Isa bin Zaid, a wealthy merchant and the enemy of the Ismailis from
Transoxiana, led to a popular outburst against the Ismailis, which Ridwan was
obliged to condone. Ridwan died in 507/1113, and was succeeded by his 16 years
son, Alp Arslan. He was yet immature, and became a tool of the enemies of the
Ismailis. The fortune of the Ismailis ran on reverse side. He massacred the
Ismailis, in which dai Abu Tahir and his son, dai Ismail, brother of
al-Munajjim and some 200 Ismailis were killed. Thus, the early period of the
Ismaili activities in Syria badly suffered due to the failure to secure a firm
foothold in the country. Very soon, they won large converts in Jabal as-Summaq,
the Jazr and the territory of the Banu Ulaym, between Shayzar and Sarmin. They
however retained their influence and procured friendly relations with
Najamuddin Ilghazi, the Artuqid ruler of Mardin and Mayyafariqin, who also
occupied Aleppo in 512/1118. In 514/1120, the Ismailis became capable in
demanding a small castle, Qalat al-Sharif from Ilghazi. He, unwilling to cede
it to him and afraid to refuse, resorted to the subterfuge of having it hastily
demolished, and then pretending to have ordered this just previously. The
Ismaili influence in Aleppo seems to have ceased in 517/1124, when Balak, the
nephew of Ilghazi, arrested the local sub-ordinate dais of the new chief dai,
Bahram. He also caused the expulsion of the Ismailis, and sold their
properties.
The upper part of Mesopotamia, known as al-Jazirah was a big
province, divided into three districts, viz. Diyar Rabiah, Diyar Mudar and
Diyar Bakr (diyar pl. of dar means habitation). Amid (the Amida of the Roman)
on the upper course of Tigris was the chief city of Dayar Bakr, where many
Ismailis resided. In 518/1124, the inhabitants of Amid in Diyar Bakr launched
massacres of the Ismailis and devastated their properties.
Abu Tahir was succeeded by another Iranian dai, Bahram for
Syria, who made Damascus as an Ismaili centre in place of Aleppo in 520/1126.
He kept his mission activities privily from beginning, and created friendship
with the chief of Damascus, Zahiruddin Atabeg Tughtigin and his vizir Abu Ali
Tahir bin Sa'd al-Mazdaqani. He also started the dawa in Aleppo, and made close
contact with the new governor, Ilghazi. Damascus was threatened by the Franks
in 520/1126 and was in need of reinforcements. There were no better fighters
than the Ismailis, hence Tughtigin engaged them during the Crusades. Ibn
Qalanisi (d. 555/1160) writes in 'Tarikh-i Dimashq' (tr. H.A.R. Gibb, London,
1932, p. 179) that, 'He (Bahram) lived in extreme concealment and secrecy, and
continually disguised himself, so that he moved from city to city and castle to
castle without anyone being aware of his identity, until he appeared in
Damascus.' Thus, after restoration of peace, Bahram entered Damascus along with
the credentials of Najamuddin Ilghazi. He was received with honour and given
protection, and soon acquired a position of power in the city. He also sought
to obtain a castle which he could fortify as a stronghold, and Tughtigin ceded
him the frontier fortress of Baniyas. Even in the city itself the Ismailis
received a building to use as a 'house of propaganda' (dar al-dawa). When he
had established himself in Baniyas, he rebuilt and fortified the castle, and
embarked on a course of his mission in the surrounding region. He dispatched
his dais in all directions, who attracted a great multitude of the people. The
Wadi al-Taym, in the region of Hasbayya to the north of Baniyas and on the
western side of Mount Hermon, offered a fertile milieu for the promulgation of
Ismailism. Inhabited thickly by Druzes and Nusairis, this region attracted the
attention of Bahram. In 522/1128, he set out from Baniyas with Ismaili forces
to take possession of Wadi al-Taym. He however had to face the challenge of
Dahhak bin Jandal, the head of Wadi al-Taym; who engaged him in a fierce battle
and caused the death of Bahram in 522/1128.
The next who followed Bahram was dai Ismail (d. 524/1129) in
Syria, who pursued the same course and retained the possession of the fort of
Baniyas. He also maintained close relation with Tughtigin, who died at the end
of 522/1128. Abu Sa'id Buri, the son and successor of Tughtigin, known as Taj
al-Mulk and Majd ad-din was however the bitterest foe of the Ismailis, and had
ordered for their massacre on 17th Ramdan, 523/September 4, 1129. The number of
the Ismailis executed in this outbreak is put at 6,000 by Ibn Athir (d.
630/1234), 10,000 by Ibn Jawzi (d. 597/1200), and 20,000 by the author of
'Bustan al-Jami.' Ismail surrendered the fortress of Baniyas to the Franks, who
were advancing on Damascus, and fled with his associates to the Frankish
regions. Fearing reprisals, Buri never left the palace unless mailed and with a
heavy guards. Buri became the victim of the two Ismaili fidais, who came from
Alamut and secretly joined the team of his guards and struck him with a sword
on 5th Jamada II, 525/May 7, 1131 at the gate of his palace in the citadel of
Damascus. Wounded in neck and hip, Buri lingered on and died a year later in
526/1132. Ismail also died in 524/1130 in exile among the Franks.
The above details suggest that the Nizari Ismailis used to
be the victims of their enemies from time to time in Syria. Despite the
repressions and debacles, the Ismailis' fortune continued to rise in Syria
during the turbulent years. After the last massacre of Buri, they however did
not loose courage, but failed to recover their position in Damascus. In sum,
the endeavour to win strongholds falls into three main campaigns. The first,
conducted from Aleppo and directed by Abu Tahir, was concentrated on Jabal
as-Summaq and ended with the death of Abu Tahir in 507/1113. The second,
conducted from Damascus by Bahram and Ismail, was aimed at Baniyas and the Wadi
al- Taym, and ended in failure in 524/1130. The third, conducted from an
unknown base by a number of chiefs between 527/1132 and 546/1151, in winning a
group of strongholds in the Jabal al-Bahra. In 527/1132-3, the fort of Qadmus
in Jabal Bahra was purchased from Saiful Mulk bin Amrun. Soon afterwards, Musa
bin Saiful Mulk sold Kahf to the Ismailis. In 531/1136, the Frankish occupants
of the fortress of Khariba were driven out by the local Ismailis. In 535/1140
the most important stronghold of Masiyaf came to their hands, by killing
Sunqur, who occupied it on behalf of the Banu Munqidh of Shayzar.
Masiyaf is a town of central Syria on the eastern side of
the Jabal al-Nusairia, situated at 33 miles to the east of Baniyas and 28 miles
to the east of Hammah. The pronunciation and orthography of the name varies
between the form, Masyad, Masyaf, Mayat, Masyath, Masyab, Masyah and Messiat.
The stronghold of Masiyaf lies to the north-east of the settlement, at the foot
of the Jabal al-Bahra. It was an Arab citadel, perched on a rocky limestone
block. Like an impregnable fort of Alamut, Masiyaf was atop a projecting,
almost perpendicular rock. It was the chief among the Ismaili castles, a
veritable eagle's nest, perched on a scarcely accessible peak, and commanding a
desolate ravine.
The leadership of Ismaili dawa at length came to the
potential hand of Rashiduddin Sinan, during whose time the Ismailism spread by
leaps and bounds throughout its length and breath, and we shall revert to this
subject later.
Ismaili History 606 - Ismaili Mission in Gujrat, India
The mission in Gujrat goes back to the period of Jaylam bin
Shayban, who had established a Fatimid rule in Multan and extended his
influence as far as Gujrat, whose informations are scant. Later on, in
461/1068, Ahmad bin Mukarram, the second ruler of the Sulayhid dynasty in
Yamen, had written a letter to Imam al-Mustansir in Cairo, when there was
certain missionary activities in Gujrat. He reported in his letter that the
envoys of the dai of India had brought him a letter, asking that permission be
granted to them to pass through verbal propaganda to the use of force. It
indicates that there were preparations for a rising on the western coast of
India, presumably in Gujrat, ruled by the then Hindu Chalukya dynasty and
establish there a Fatimid enclave. It however appears that there had been no
such operation in Gujrat.
In 943, Mulraja I (960-995), Chalukya prince of Kalyani
founded an independent dynasty, known as Chalukya of Anahilapataka or the
Solanki dynasty. He is famous for building the great temple of Rudramahalya at
Sidhpur. He was succeeded by his son Chamundaraja, and he in turn was succeeded
by his son Vallbaraja, who died after a short reign of six months. His son
Durlabharaja (1009-1021) ruled for 12 years and was succeeded by his nephew
Bhima I, who is well known in the annals of Gujrat. It was Mehmud of Ghazna who
plundered the temple of Somnath in 416/1026 during the reign of Bhima I. Mehmud
killed the people at large number who happened to come in his passages and
destroyed their fortifications and smashed idols in pieces. The temple of
Somnath was built upon 56 pillars of teakwood coated with lead. The principal
idol itself was in a chamber. According to Ibn Athir (1st vol., p. 97), 'Mehmud
seized it, part of it he burnt, and part of it he carried away with him to
Ghazna, where he made it a step at the entrance of the grand mosque.' Gold and
jewels worth 2 million dinars, and the stone phallic emblem of the god were
transported to Ghazna, and the number of the slain exceeded fifty thousand.
During the fierce operations of Mehmud, Bhima I had fled from his kingdom and
sought refuge in Kutchh. After the departure of Mehmud, Bhima I recovered his
country and rebuilt the temple of Somnath. He died in 1063 and was succeeded by
his third son Karna I, who had subdued the Kolis and Bhils in his dominions.
His successor was Jaysinha, surnamed Sidhraja, who ascended in 1094 as the 7th
ruler of the Solanki dynasty. He was one of the most remarkable kings of
Gujrat, who inflicted a crushing defeat on the ruler of Malwa and annexed it to
his dominions, and assumed the title of 'King of Avanti'. He was a just, kind
and sagacious ruler and extended his patronage to learned men. It is said that
Pir Satgur, a famous Ismaili dai had arrived in Gujrat during his period.
Hemacandra Suri (1088-1172) was a contemporary Jain sage and a prolific writer,
who had rapidly acquired a great reputation for learning and was much patronaged
by Jaysinha Sidhraja and his successor, but he did not mention any missionary
activity of Pir Satgur in Gujrat. The most important account mostly gleaned
from the ginans and the traditional materials, tracing the advent of Pir Satgur
in the reign of Jaysinha Sidhraja (1094-1143). Accordingly, he is said to have
come to India from Setar Depa via the city of Bhildi and proceeded to Patan in
Gujrat.
Pir Nuruddin, who assumed the title, Satgur (true master) or
Satgur Nur (light of the true master), had made a large proselytism at Patan in
Gujrat among the low castes of Kharwa, Kanbi and Kori. He cultivated the seeds
of proselytism entirely with peaceful penetration, and there is no instance
where force was employed. Pir Satgur gained success by adapting himself to the
local cultural conditions and by leading a simple and pious life. It must be
borne in mind that the new converts recognized Islam through Ismailism in early
stage in the name of Satpanth (true path). Hence, he had planted the seeds of
the Satpanth Ismailism in India, which was a quietistic, meditative and
mystically oriented in the embryonic stage.
The historicity of Pir Satgur is blanketed mistily in tales
and miracles in florid and bombastic style absolutely bereft of historical
value. He is however said to have betrothed to the daughter of king Surchand,
the chief of Navsari, and nothing else is known for historical purpose. We may
safely conclude that the prime objective of his preaching was the conversion of
Hindu rather than the attraction of Muslims to the Ismaili fold. The narratives
of later sources provide some divergent account of the period of mission he
represented in Gujrat. The weakness of the later sources, indicating however, a
remote possibility, not a strong one, that he was sent by Imam Mustansir (d.
487/1095) from Cairo. Some placed his period much later during the time of Imam
Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam (d. 561/1166) from Alamut. According to the ginans
(hymns), he came from Daylam, an epithet of Iran. It is however, much nearer to
reasonable possibility that he had arrived in Gujrat when dai Abdul Malik bin
Attash (d. after 494/1101), was active in Ismaili mission in central and
western regions of Iran, with a headquarters at Ispahan. The tombstone of the
shrine of Pir Satgur, the oldest monument of the Khoja Ismailis in India,
located at Navsari, near Surat, places his death on 487/1095. It is also
possible to draw an inference on this juncture that Pir Shams (d. 757/1356)
arrived in Uchh Sharif almost in 727/1328, and he writes in his one ginan (no.
64:2) that he reached there about 240 years after the death of Pir Satgur, and
therefore, it is almost in conformity with the date inscribed on the tombstone.
It is worth stressing on this juncture that the Sanskrit
(Sanskrta, i.e. prepared, refined or cultivated), a classical literary language
of India, came into existence probably with the outset of the Christian era. It
is a scholarly language with a status similar to that of Latin in medieval
Europe. It is an old Indo-Aryan tongue from which the Prakrit evolved during
11th century. The Prakrit is the mother of Marathi, Hindi and Gujrati
languages. In its early stage, the Gujrati was known as an apbrunsh (corrupted)
dialect during 12th century, representing an original imprint of the Prakrit.
After having different transformations, the present Gujrati evolved with its
full swing during the 14th century. Keeping all this in mind, it is safe to
conclude that the language of Gujrati was yet in the cradle in a crude form
during the period of Pir Satgur. It is therefore deserves notice that the
extant Gujrati ginans attributed to Pir Satgur are the later compositions,
reflecting modernity in its style.
Pir Satgur is said to have emphasized the new adherents on
the practice of tithe, or religious dues; the observation of religious ethics
and attendance in religious assembly. He did not introduce new rites, and as a
result, no peculiar religious lodge was erected. The practice of zikr was
however remained into practice as the milestone of the Satpanth. The new
converts thus became known as the Khojasfor the first time.
Let us pause for a moment to examine the origin of the word
khoja. The new converts became known as khoja - a title firstly came to be
originated during the time of Pir Satgur. Sayed Imam Shah (d. 926/1520)
describes in his 'Moman Chetamani' (no. 198-199) that, 'Pir Satgur Nur had
converted them, and consigned a path to be protected. He made them Khojas after
conversion, and gave the essence of the path. The Satpanth started since then
with a practice of tithe.' Thus, it is not difficult to determine with
exactitude that the term khoja came to be known from the time of Pir Satgur.
The word khoja is supposed to have derived from koh-cha
means 'small mountain', and later on, it was changed to kauja or kohja. This
derivation is almost irrelevant, rather not convincing. Most of the modern
scholars however hazard an opinion that it is a corrupt form of khwaja (lord or
master), which also seems incorrect. It must be borne in mind that Sayed Imam
Shah used both the word khoja in 'Moman Chetamanni' (stanza 199) and khwaja
(stanza 122) as well, where the question of the corruption itself becomes
annuled, and therefore, the modern theory suggesting its root from khwaja seems
almost doubtful. It should also be known that the Ismaili Pirs in India had
never introduced any foreign terminology during the early stage of conversion.
The above assumption seems to have grown in Sind, where the Iranian
terminologies were in vogue in the Sindhi language. In Sind, the word khoja is
also pronounced with the corresponding prevalent word khwaja, and it has
probably constrained the scholars to attest its derivation from khwaja.
The early extant records indicate that the term khoja stands
in its original form without being corrupted. An inscription, for instance, is
discovered at Patan, Gujrat by Col. Tod, vide his 'Travels in Western India'
(p. 506), belonging to the year 662/1264. This inscription is found in the
temple of Harsata, which was originally a mosque in the time of Arjundeva
(1262-1274), the second king of Vaghela line of the Solanki dynasty of
Anhilvad. It reads that a ship-owner, called Khoja Abu Ibrahim had donated a
piece of land, an oil-mill and two shops; and from its income, a mosque had been
built. Khoja Abu Ibrahim was an Indian and living in Hormuz in Iranian Gulf.
From this antique record, it is difficult to surmise that the above inscribed
term khoja should have been khwaja prior to the period of 662/1264. While
examining further earliest records, it is known that Kiya Buzrug Ummid (d.
532/1138), the second ruler of Alamut had dispatched his envoy, called Khoja
Muhammad Nassihi Shahrastani to the Seljuq court, where he had been murdered in
523/1129. The later records suggest that Pir Mashaikh (d. 1108/1697) compiled
about 16 books in 1092/1680, in which he has also used the term khoja like
Sayed Imam Shah. Virji Premji Parpiya had translated one of the Persian
manuscript of his forefather, called Khoja Ibaloo (d. 1208/1794), entitled 'Khoja
Iblani Vansh'nu Vratant' (Bombay, 1917), who begins the account of his
forebear, called Khoja Bhaloo (d. 1016/1607) during the time of Pir Dadu (d.
1005/1596). It also contains frequent usage of the term khoja. Captain
Alexandar Hamlet reports in 1140/1728 that the wealth of a certain merchant,
called Khoja Muhammad Hirji of Bombay was more than that of East India Company.
The balance of argument tends to sound that the khoja is an unswerving word
since its origin without being adulterated even in later period.
The khoja is a Hindi word, its verb being khoj, means to
search. According to 'Encyclopaedia Asiatica' (Delhi, 1982, 5th vol., p. 564),
the Hindi word khoja means information or search. The Persian prof. Kassim
Sumar Thariani of Elphinstone College of Bombay, also ruled out its origin from
khwaja, and writes that, Khoja is a word derived from Hindi word khoj means to
dig out, or search in such a sense that it turns to mean, one who is engrossed
in search of truth in religion.' (cf. 'Khoja Gnanti'nu Gorav' by V.N. Hooda,
Bombay, 1927, p. 118)
The local low castes were simply converted in the time of
Pir Satgur without being loaded with rituals, and after their admission they
were consigned the Sufic practice of zikr, for which they were mastered in their
former cults; and were instructed to 'get absorbed' (kho'ja!) in deep
contemplation. This phrase purporting kho'ja (get absorbed) gradually became a
significant phrase among the absorptive initiates, rather it became a
distinctive title, or identification among local people. In sum, the new
converts first embraced Ismaili faith, and then became khoja (the absorptive
ones), which also sounds the notion of 'Moman Chetamanni' (stanza 198-199) of
Sayed Imam Shah.
Ismaili History 607 - Death of Hasan bin Sabbah
Hasan bin Sabbah is one of those few great leaders, who are
very rarely born in the world. By virtue of his exemplary character, he could
establish the Ismaili state amidst the teeth of very bitterest opposition and
harsh theological storms. He was a great military leader, organizer and a
devoted missionary. He had a rare ability to keep his mind fixed steadily on
the distance horizon, and at the same time concentrated his whole effort on
what was practically possible. In chastity and integrity, Hasan bin Sabbah was
as firm as a mountain. He had a penetrating and analytical mind. Force of
character, prodigious capacity for hard work and concentrated effort and firm
and patient adherence to the religion distinguished him from his
contemporaries. When he decided to accomplish something, he seldom gave up its
pursuit and waited patiently, perhaps for years. Hasan bin Sabbah was
ambitious, but it was not personal ambition. He fought for his faith not for
own sake. In his administrative framework, he was seen a creative, bold,
courageous and of strong nerves. Dr. Farhad Daftary writes in 'The Ismailis,
their History and Doctrines' (London, 1990, pp. 366-7) that: 'Hasan-i Sabbah
was indeed a remarkable man. An organizer and a political strategist of unrivalled
capability, he was at the same time a thinker and writer who led an ascetic
life. Several examples of his asceticism and harshness have been cited by our
Persian historians. He was evidently equally strict with friend and foe, and
highly uncompromising in his austere and Islamic life style which he imposed on
the Nizari community, especially in Rudhbar. In particular, he insisted on the
observance of the Islamic religious duty of amr bil ma'ruf va nahy az
munkar(commanding the good and prohibiting the evil). During all the years
spent at Alamut, Hasan evidently never descended from the castle, and he is
said to have left his living quarter only twice to mount the roof-top. During
that period, nobody drank wine openly in Alamut, and the playing of musical instruments
was also forbidden. Hasan sent his wife and daughters to Girdkuh where they
earned a simple life by spinning, never having them returned to Alamut. He also
had both his sons, Ustad Husayn and Muhammad, executed. Muhammad's guilt was
wine-drinking, while Ustad Husayn had been suspected of complicity in the
murder of the dai Husayn Qaini in Quhistan.'Giving an example of Hasan's
strictness against music, Charles E. Nowell writes in 'The Old Man of the
Mountain' that, 'A man who frivolously disturbed the puritan austerity of
Alamut with flute-playing was expelled from the fortress for ever.' (cf.
'Speculum', vol. xxii, no. 4, 1947, p. 502). He left no male issue behind him,
the two sons he had, as referred to above, having been sentenced to death. Juvaini
(p. 680) writes that, 'Hasan bin Sabbah used to point out to the execution of
both his sons as a reason against any one's imagining that he had conducted
propaganda on their behalf and had had that object in mind.' According to
'Unity and Variety in Muslim Civilization' (ed. by G.E. Von Grunebaum, New
York, 1956), 'The severity of Hasan-i Sabbah against the peccadolloes of his
sons is a proof of the moral discipline which reigned at Alamut.' He had
numerous opportunities to arrogate the powers of religious leadership to
himself, but he always made himself sub-servient to the cause of the Imam. Once
his few followers wrote up a genealogy for him in the usual elegant style, he,
according to Marshall Hodgson in 'The Order of Assassins' (Netherland, 1955, p.
51), 'said to have thrown it into the water, remarking that he would rather be
the Imam's favoured servant than his degenerate son.' E.G. Browne also writes
in 'A Literary History of Persia' (London, 1964, 2nd vol., p. 20) that Hasan
had said, 'I would rather be the Imam's chosen servant than his unworthy son.'
In view of Jorunn J. Buckley, 'Hasan's followers were called the party of the
truthful, adhering to Hasan's total authority as supereme teacher. Of course,
this party's real leader was the Imam, hidden to mortal eyes. Hasan did not try
to be recognized as the Imam, rather, his role was that of the hujja, who, as
noted, demanded full obedience in the occultation period.' (vide 'Stvdia
Islamica,' Paris, LX, 1984, p. 141)
. 'The use of wine was strickly forbidden to the Ismailis,'
writes John Malcolm in 'The History of Persia' (London, 1815, 1st vol., p.
401)) 'and they were enjoyed the most temperate and abstenious habits.' Sayed
Amir Ali also writes in 'The Spirit of Islam' (London, 1955, p. 340) that,
'Hasan bin Sabbah himself was a strict observer of all the precepts of
religion, and would not allow drunkeness or dancing or music within the circuit
of his rule.'
According to 'Jamiut Tawarikh' (p.134), 'The rest of the
time until his death, Hasan bin Sabbah passed inside the house, where he lived;
he was occupied with reading books, committing the words of dawa to writing,
and administrating the affairs of his realm, and he lived an ascetic,
abstemious and pious life.'
Hasan bin Sabbah took up his residence in the tower of
Alamut. His quarters were a bedroom and library. It is said that only two times
during his residence did he find time to emerge from his modest lodgings into
the open air. Yet it was here, in his modest quarters that he supervised the
stern training of his ardent young fidais. Coarsely attired, consuming simple
fare, abjuring wine under penalty of death, devoting their lives to the
acquisition of the physical and intellectual skills needed for the
accomplishment of their missions, these fidais were intensely loyal to him.
Hasan bin Sabbah fell ill in the month of Rabi II, 518/May,
1124. When he felt that the shadows of death were closing upon him, he summoned
his lieutenant at Lamasar, Kiya Buzrug Ummid, and designated him as the next ruler
of the Nizari Ismaili State. He also appointed three seniors for assisting Kiya
Buzrug until such time as the Imam himself came to head his realm. These
advisors were Didar Abu Ali Ardistani, Hasan Adam Qasrani and Kiya Ba Jafar (d.
519/1125). Hasan bin Sabbah died towards the end of Rabi II, 518/middle of
June, 1124 at the age of 90 years, and ruled the Alamut and other fortresses
for 35 years.
Ismaili History 608 - The Doctrines of Talim
It appears that the early Nizari Ismailis showed a
particular interest in the doctrine of the Imamate and concentrated their
doctrinal investigations. Thus, Hasan bin Sabbah broached the doctrine of talim
(authoritative teaching) to the Ismailis. The Sunni observers developed a
distinct impression that the Ismailis of Alamut reflected a 'new teaching'
(al-dawa al-jadida). The new teaching of talimdid not however, entail the
formulation of any sect of new doctrines, it was, rather, the reformulation of
the fundamental principle of Shia Islam embodied in the doctrine of ilm
imparted by Imam Jafar Sadik. Ibn Tughri Birdi (d. 874/1470) writes in his
'al-Nujum al- Zahira fi Muluk Misr wa al-Qahira' (Cairo, 1929, 4th vol., p. 77)
that, 'During the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, al-Muizz and later, al- Mustansir
had utilized the principle of talim to the fullest extent.'
Hasan bin Sabbah, thus did not originate the doctrine of
talim, but elaborated and interpreted the doctrine of ilm of Shia Islam abreast
of the time. According to 'The Cambridge History of Iran' (ed. by J.A. Boyle,
Cambridge, 1968, 5th vol., p. 433), 'But observers got the impression that
there was a 'new teaching' associated with the movement which could be
contrasted with the old and thus would not be surprising. If there was,
however, it was not a wholly new system but a new emphasis and development of a
doctrine of long standing among Ismailis and indeed among Shiis generally: the
doctrine of talim, authoritative teaching.' According to Marshall Hodgson, 'It
was this doctrine of talim which was especially developed by Hasan-i Sabbah; he
turned it into a sharp intellectual tool in keeping with his whole life and
demeanor.' (op. cit., p. 53)
Hasan bin Sabbah compiled a theological treatise in this
context, entitled 'Fusul-i Arba'a' (the Four Chapters), which was an Ismaili
thesis and in its fully developed form, the doctrine of talim was expounded by
him in an Iranian essay. Several writers have mentioned, notably summarized by
Shaharistani. In the doctrine of talim, Hasan bin Sabbah consistently
emphasized the role of the Imam, with the Prophet having been a link in the
logical chain from God to Imam. It became so central to the Ismailis thought
that its followers in Khorasan came to be known as the Talimiyya. Many Sunni
writers assailed the doctrine of talim in view of their own sense of propriety
in opprobrious words. The Abbasids also reacted and hired the famous
theologian, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111), who tried to refute it in his
'Kitab fada'ih al-Batiniyya wa fada'il al-Mustazhiriyya' and other treatises.
According to Wilferd Madelung in 'Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran' (New
York, 1988, p. 102), 'In itself Hasan-i Sabbah's teaching was hardly a radical
challenge to Islam. Like Fatimid Ismailism, he insisted on the validity and
strict application of the Sharia.'
Ismaili History 609 - The Ismaili fidais
The history of the Ismailis of Alamut has been always
grossly misunderstood in a hideous form. Most unfortunately, it is exactly
about this period that we possess almost no genuine Ismaili sources. Most of
the extant sources have come down to us from the aggressive camps, who based
their informations from the illusive bits and shreds. They seem to take
informations on its face-value without trying to verify the truth thereof. But
history, as distinct from fiction, proves otherwise. Our earliest source, for
instance, is the bitterly anti-Ismaili text of Juvaini, who is responsible to
distort the genuine Ismaili traditions. Unfortunately, the scholars follow the
stories designed by Juvaini without closely realizing his inimical attitude
towards the Ismailis. W.Ivanow (1886-1970) writes in 'Alamut and Lamasar'
(Tehran, 1960, p. 26) that, 'There are scholars who are perfectly satisfied
with what he (Juvaini) says, showing their utter ignorance.'
One of the allegations on the Ismailis is the character of
the fidais (the devotees), the self-sacrificing warriors; who had been spoken
in spreading terrorism by daggers, and are termed Assassins by the Western
authorities of Crusades period. When the Crusades spoke of the Assassins, they
originally referred to the Syrian Ismailis. Later, the term was also commonly
affixed with the Iranian Ismailis by European travellers and chroniclers.
According to W.Ivanow, 'This subject has been as much hackneyed and surrounded by
legends or fairy tales, as almost everything in connection with Ismailism.'
(Ibid. p. 21)
Hasan bin Sabbah hated war and avoided commotion that would
rob of him of peace and disturb his life of seclusion. He objected unnecessary
sheding of blood, but his sworn enemies hurled in the fire of war, so that they
might thereby obtain and retain their power and kingdom. Thus, Hasan bin Sabbah
resorted to removing the root causes and killing the germs of mischief that
infected the selfish rulers. He killed few of them and saved the Muslims from
fighting, which was necessary and justifiable. The Ismaili fidais did not kill
anyone out of hatred or rancour but out of desire to save a number of Muslims
who would otherwise have been skinned alive. Bosworth writes in 'The Islamic
Dynasties' (cf. Islamic Survey, series no. 5, Edinburgh, 1967, p. 128) that,
'The Ismailis played a significant role in three-cornered struggle with the
Franks and the Sunni Muslims. Since the Ismailis were comparatively few in
number, assassination of prominent people often served as a substitute for
direct military action.'
We must not lose sight of the fact that the enemies of the
Ismailis did not like an independent Nizari Ismaili state and reacted violently
to it. They launched attacks one after another with vast overwhelming forces,
accompanied by destruction of crops, cutting of fruit trees and other wrecking
tools to damage the economy of the Ismailis. The general picture emerging from
it suggests that the Ismailis were comparatively less to meet the danger
hovering upon them, therefore, an armed unit of the fidai warriors seems to
have been trained, who adopted an upheaval method of guerilla warfare for
defensive purpose. Some scholars regard the Ismaili struggle a revolt, but it
was positively a struggle for survival. It was a technique of the limited
warriors to force the gigantic and colossal military machine to turn back by
spreading awful milieu in their camps, which has been woven inimically in
fictions. W.Ivanow writes, 'In proper perspective, fidaism was a local form of
guerilla warfare, ... it would be decidedly idiotic and dishonest to see in it
something like the most prominent organic feature of the Nizari Ismaili
doctrine, as is done by some ignorant but pretentious scholars.' (Ibid. p. 21)
W.Montgomery Watt in his 'Islam and the Integration of Society' (London, 1961,
p. 69) and Edward Mortimer in 'Faith and Power' (London, 1982, p. 48) also
admit that the method of the fidais was no other than that of the guerilla
warfare. Bernard Lewis writes in 'The Assassins' (London, 1967, p. 130) that,
'Hasan found a new way, by which a small force, disciplined and devoted, could
strike effectively against the overwhelmingly superior army.' Guerilla warfare
is an irregular unit of fighters, not so popular in those days, therefore, the
misnomer, Assassins to the Ismailis in the Western sources became an easy
coinage. This method however is very common in modern age, which is also termed
as terrorism by the westeners.
Ismaili History 610 - Genesis of the word 'Assassin'
The Nizari Ismailis, an seminal branch of Shia Islam, are
designated with a misnomer, Assassins in mediaeval Europe. This is an abusive
term that had been given a wide currency by the Crusaders and their occidental
chroniclers, who had first come into contact with the Syrian Ismailis in the
Near East during the early decades of the 12th century. Charles E. Nowell
writes in 'The Old Man of the Mountain'that, 'In the early years of the twelfth
century, as the Christians spread their conquests in the holy land and Syria,
they made the acquaintance of the Ismailis. Many of their historians had
something to say about the sect, and what they gave was usually a mixture of
information and misinformation' (cf. Speculum, vol. xxii, no. 4, 1947, p. 503).
The Ismailis were not a band of terrorists, but their
fighting against their oppressors was a struggle for survival. Mediaeval
Europeans, who remained absolutely ignorant of Muslim beliefs and practices,
had transmitted a number of tales, and produced a perverted image of the
Ismailis. Rene Dussaud writes in 'Histoire et Religion des Nosaires' (Paris,
1900) that, 'One of the very few Europeans who have appreciated the good points
of this remarkable sect and who is of opinion that the judgements pronounced by
western scholars are marked by an excessive severity. It is certainly wrong to
confound as do the Musulman doctors, in one common reprobation. And the Old Man
of the Mountain himself was not so black as it is custom to paint him.' In more
recent times, too, many western scholars have continued to apply the
ill-conceived term Assassins to the Nizari Ismailis without being aware of its
etymology or dubious origin. Paul E. Walker makes his comments in his 'Abu
Yaqub al-Sijistani: Intellectual Missionary' (London, 1996, p. 1) that, 'Until
recently, however, the Ismailis were studied and judged almost exclusively on
the basis of the evidence collected or fabricated by their enemies, including
the bulk of the medieval Sunni heresiographers and polemicists who were hostile
towards the Shi'is in general and the Ismailis among them in particular. These
Sunni authors in fact treated Shi'ite interpretations of Islam as expressions
of heterodoxy or even heresy. As a result, a `black legend' was gradually developed
and put into circulation in the Muslim world to discredit the Ismailis and
their interpretations of Islam. The Christian Crusaders and their occidental
chroniclers who remained almost completely ignorant of Islam and its internal
divisions, disseminated their own myths of the Ismailis, which came to be
accepted in the West as true descriptions of Ismaili teachings and practices.
Modern orientalists, too, have studied the Ismailis on the basis of hostile
Sunni sources and the fanciful occidental accounts of medieval times. Thus,
legends and misconceptions have continued to surround the Ismailis through the
twentieth century.'
Benjamin of Tudela, the Spanish Rabbi of 12th century, who
was the first European traveller to approach the frontiers of China (between
1159 and 1173). He is one of the early Europeans to have written about the
Ismailis. He visited Syria in 562/1167, and described in his 'The Itinerary of
Benjamin of Tudela' (tr. by Marcus N. Adler, London, 1907) the Syrian Ismailis
under the term of Hashishin. Next extant description is found in a diplomatic
report of 570/1175 of Burchard, an envoy sent to Egypt and Syria by the Roman
emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (1152-1190), in which he has used the word
Heyssessini (in Roman, segnors de montana) for the Ismailis of Syria. William
(1130-1185), archbishop of Tyre, is the first historian of the Crusades to have
described the Ismailis of Syria in 581/1186 with the name Assissini in his
'History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea' (tr. by Babcock and Krey, New York,
1943, 2nd vol., p. 390), but also admits that he does not know the origin of
this name, and by no means states that it was unknown to the Muslims. The
German historian, Arnold of Lubeck (d. 610/1212) used for the Ismailis of Syria
the term Heissessin in his 'Chronica Slavorum' (1869, 21st. vol., p. 240).
James of Vitry, the Bishop of Acre (from 1216 to 1228), was perhaps the best
informed occidental observer of Muslim affairs after William of Tyre. He
produced his 'Secret Societies of the Middle Ages' (London, 1846), wherein he
applied the term Assasini for the Syrian Ismailis. William of Rubruck
(1215-1295), who had completed his visit of China in 653/1255, seems to have
been amongst the first Europeans to have designated the Iranian Ismailis as
Axasins and Hacsasins, hitherto used only for the Syrian Ismailis. The eminent
French chronicler, Jean de Joinville (1224-1317) produced a most valuable
'Histoire de Saint Louis', (comp. 1305) relates the Syrian Ismaili ambassadors,
who had come to see King Louis IX (1226-1270) at Acre. Joinville referred to
the term Assacis for the Ismailis. Marco Polo (1254-1324) has also used the
word Ashishin in his travelogue.
Different etymologies of the modern word Assassins are given
in the occidental sources, such as Accini, Arsasini, Assassi, Assassini,
Assessini, Assessini, Assissini, Heyssessini etc. Thomas Hyde in 'Veterum
Persasrum Religionis Historia' (Oxford, 1700, p. 493) opines that the word
Assassin must be the word hassas, derived from the root hassa, meaning, to kill
or exterminate. This opinion was followed by Menage and Falconet. De Volney
also adopted this etymology in his 'Voyage en Egypte et en Syrie' (1st. vol.,
p. 404) without citing any evidence. Historian Abul Fida (d. 732/1331) writes
that Masiyaf, a town that was the headquarters of the Syrian Ismailis, is
situated on a mountain, called Jabal Assikkin (Jabal al-Sikkin). The word
sikkin means knife or dagger, and the name of this mountain may thus mean, 'the
mountain of the knife.' This seems to be some analogy of the coinage of the
above westeners, reflecting the view in Falconet's 'Memoires de l'Academie des
Inscriptions' (17th vol., p. 163); who called it, la montagne du Poigard
(mountain of the dagger). Silvestre de Sacy (1758-1838) however suggests that
sekkin in this case is the name of a man, so that we should translate it 'the
Sekkin's Mountain' (la montagne de Sekkin). Michel Sabbagh of Acre suggests the
origin of al-Sisani. Instead of al-Sisani, the word often used is al-Sasani,
means 'the family of Sasan.' This term is used by the Arabs to indicate an
adventurer. Simon Assemani (1752-1821), the professor of oriental languages in
Padua, used the word Assissana in his 'Giornale dell' Italiana Letteratura'
(1806, pp. 241-262), and according to him, it is a corrupt form of Assissani in
connection with the Arabic word assissath (al-sisa), meaning rock or fortress,
and as such, Assissani (al-sisani) refers to one who dwells in a rocky
fortress.
During the 17th and 18th centuries, the name Assassin
received a good deal of attention from western scholars, who threw a flood of
theories to explain its origin and significance. The mystery was finally seems
to have solved by Silvestre de Sacy, who discovered that the word Assassin was
Hashishiyya, i.e., the users of hashish.
The Muslims, having exhausted all their resources of
condemnation, now restored to designate the Syrian Ismailis by different
religious terms, such as Batiniyya and the Talimiyya. The Ismailis were also
branded as Malahida (or Mulhidun) by their sworn enemies. Much less frequently,
the Ismailis of Syria were called by other abusive term, such as Hashishiyya,
i.e., the users of hashish. It seems that the oppressors had foiled in their
attempt to extirpate the Ismailis and eventually made a last vehement strike
upon them.
The earliest reported application of the term Hashishiyya to
the Ismailis occurs in the anti-Ismaili polemical epistle issued in 517/1123 by
the then Fatimid regime in Cairo on behalf of the caliph al-Amir (d. 524/1130),
entitled 'Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham'. This epistle contains the term Hashishiyya
for the Syrian Nizari Ismailis for two times, vide pp. 27 and 32. It must be
known that the well- known event of qiyama celebrated at Alamut in 559/1164
became a main tool of the enemies of the Ismailis to discredit them. The
orthodox Muslims waged a bitter propaganda, and uttered all the prevalent
abusive terms for them. The dead term Hashishiyya once again was given a life,
and it came to be used almost for the first time in the Seljuqid literatures.
The earliest known Seljuqid chronicle is 'Nusratu'l Fatrah wa Usratu'l Fatrah'
(comp. 578/1183) by Imadudin Muhammad al-Katib Ispahani (d. 597/1201), which is
now extant only in an abridged version compiled by Fateh Ali bin Muhammad
al-Bundari in 623/1226, entitled 'Zubdatu'n Nasrah wa Nakhbatu'l Usrah' (pp.
169, 195). Imadudin begins his chronicle from 485/1092, and did not put his
work into its final form until 578/1183 when he had already been in Syria for
15 years. He seems first Seljuqid writer to have used the term, Hashishiyya for
the Syrian Ismailis. Ibn Muyassar (d. 677/1278) simply states in his 'Tarikh-i
Misr' (p. 102) that in Syria, the Ismailis are called Hashishiyya, in Alamut;
they are known as Batiniyya and Malahida; in Khorasan as Talimiyya. Abu Shama
(d. 665/1267) also used Hashishiyya for the Syrian Ismailis in his 'Kitab
al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn' (1st. vol., pp. 240 and 258). Ibn Khaldun
(d. 808/1406) writing after 13th century, mentions in 'Muqaddima' (1st. vol.,
p. 143) that the Ismailis of Syria, once called as al-Hashishiyya
al-Ismailiyya, were known in his time as the Fidawiyya. All this sounds from
the extant sources that the term Hashishiyya was commonly applied for the
Syrian Ismailis between 11th and 12th centuries by the Muslims, and were ceased
to be used since 13th century.
It however must bear in mind that Juvaini and Rashiduddin do
not use the term Hashishiyya for the Ismailis of Iran, as the term was not
prevalent during their time in Iran. W. Madelung has however recently
discovered in his 'Arabic Texts Concerning the History of the Zaydi Imams of
Tabaristan, Daylaman and Gilan' (Beirut, 1987, pp. 146 & 329) that the
Ismailis of Iran too were named Hashishiyya in some contemporary Zaidi sources
compiled in the Arabic language at the Caspian region during the first half of
the 13th century. The Zaidi Shiites were the closest rivals of the Ismailis in
northern Iran and had prolonged military confrontations with them in the
Caspian region, had launched their own anti-Ismaili literary campaign. This
tends to reveal that these Arabian sources had referred to the Iranian Ismailis
under the misnomer prevalent in their region for the Syrian Ismailis.
Hashish or Hashisha is the Arabic word for hemp, which is
latinized cannabis sativa. Its variety is Indian hemp or Cannabis Indica, have
been known and used in the Near East since ancient times as a drug with
intoxicating effects. The earliest express mention of the word hashish
contained in 'at-Tadhkirah fi'l Khilaf' by Abu Ishaq ash-Shirazi (d. 476/1083).
The use of hashish grew in Syria, Egypt and other Muslim countries during 12th
and 13th centuries among the inferior strata of society. Numerous tracts were
compiled by Muslim authors, describing that the use of hashish would effect on
the users' morality and religion. Consequently, the users of hashishqualified
for a inferior social and moral status, similarly to that of a mulhida, or
heretic in religion. Neither the Ismailis of Syria nor the contemporary
non-Ismaili Muslim texts, which were rigorous towards the Ismailis, ever
attested to the use of hashish among the Nizari Ismailis.
Hashish, a narcotic drug was a common usage in the Sufic
orbits in Damascus since 11th century, and they were subjected to the hatred of
the theologians. Franz Rosenthal writes in 'The Herb: Hashish versus Medieval
Muslim Society' (Leiden, 1971, p. 53) that, 'The use of hashish by Sufi
fraternities and their presumably large role in the spread of hashish use can
be accepted as a fact in view of all the later evidence pointing in this
direction.' The Sufi initiates were called Hashishiyya, and it was commonly
known among them as Hashish al-Fuqara (the herb of the faqirs). Among them, the
other titles for hashish were 'digester of food' (hadim al-aqwat), 'rouser of
thought' (baithat al-fikr), 'queen of insanity' (sultanat al-junun), 'the green
one' (al-akhdar), 'daughter of cannabis' (ibnat al- qunbus) etc.
Nuruddin Ali bin al-Jazzar writes in his 'Qam al-Washin fi
dhamm al-barrashin' (comp. before 991/1583) that the accursed hashish 'was
originated by some group around the five hundreds' (ahdathaha ba'd fi'ah fi
nahw qarn al-khams mi'ah). According to Franz Rosenthal, 'The word fi'ah
(group) is used here for the sake of the rhyme and thus may very well mean
Sufis, rather than sectarians or soldiers.' (Ibid. pp. 53-4) Thus, it seems
possible that hashish had been discovered around 500/1106 by the wandering
Sufis, who qualified the title of mulhida, or heretic in religion, and the term
Hashishiyya became a common abuse in the society. Az-Zarkashi
(745-794/1344-1392) in 'Zahr al-arish fi ahkam al-hashish' and al-Ukbari (d.
690/1291) in 'Kitab as-Sawanih' however write that it was believed that a Sufi
Shaikh Hyder (d. 618/1221), the founder of Hyderi Sufi Order, discovered
hashish in the province of Nishabur around the year 550/1155. This seems almost
imponderable version. Franz Rosenthal writes to this effect that, 'The use of
the drug became common among Haydar's followers only years after his death.
Therefore, the Khurasanians ascribed the introduction of the drug to him who
was completely innocent of it.' (Ibid. p. 45) Others also connected the
introduction of hashish with a certain Sufi Ahmad as-Sawaja. In sum,
hashishseems to have been discovered by the Sufis around 500/1106, but its
propaganda to use and the special way of preparing it to use was introduced by
the followers of Shaikh Hyder after his death. The Turkish poet, Fuzuli
(885-963/1480-1556) writes in his poem, 'Layla Megnun' (p. 167) that, 'Hashish
can claim to be the friend of dervishes and to be available in the corner of
every mosque and among all kinds of scholars.' Hashish also enjoyed particular
favour in the Sufic poems, such as Ibn Kathir (13th vol., p. 314) quotes the
following verses:-
Hashish contains the meaning of my desire.
You dear people of intelligence and understanding.
They have declared it forbidden without any justification on
the basis of reason and tradition.
Declaring forbidden what is not forbidden is forbidden.
Al-Badri quotes a poem of a certain Muhammad bin Makki bin
Ali bin al-Hussain al-Mashhadi, which reads:-
The use of hashish is censured by all silly persons, weak of
mind, insensitive,
To the censure coming from stupid and envious individuals.
Share hashish with a goodly young man firm.
In the preservation of friendship and appointments.
Is it not a relaxation for the mind? Thus enjoy
It, all you sensible men!
Consequently, the Sufis using hashish had been rigorously
condemned. Ibn ash-Shihnah (d. 815/1412) composed a couple of verses that:-
I am surprised to find a Shaikh who commands people to be
pious.
But himself never heeds the Merciful One or shows piety
towards Him.
He considers it permissible to eat hashish as well as usury.
And (says that) he who studies truly the Sahih (Bukhari) is a heretic.
The Muslim jurists also condemned the use of hashish and
demanded severe punishment, declaring it dangerous to Islam and society.
Gradually, the word Hashishiyya became an abusive term mostly in Syria. One who
was hated, he was branded as Hashishiyya in the society, and thus, the Syrian
Ismailis were also lebelled with the same misnomer by their enemies.
Running parallel with this, it is worth keeping in mind that
the Syrian Ismailis too called themselves as al-sufat (the pure, or sincere),
resembling the term sufi. According to 'Bustan al-Jami' (comp. 561/1165), the
Ismailis in Syria called themselves as al-Sufat. Ibn al-Azim (d. 660/1262)
however writes in his 'Zubdat al-Halab' (comp. 641/1243) that a faction of the
Syrian Ismailis at Jabal as-Summuq called themselves al-Sufat. Both Ismailism
and Sufism are similar in a way, but it should be known that, Every Ismaili is
a Sufi, but no every Sufi is an Ismaili. Ismailism is an esoteric tariqah as
well as a social system with its own rules and characteristics, while Sufism is
an individual concern. The Ismailis however never allowed themselves to be
submerged totally into the general esoteric medley, and their form of Shiite
Sufism remained quite distinctive from other mystical orders of Islam. The
Ismailis were the main target of the Sunni Muslims, who used all misnomers and
abusive words to discredit them. Incorporating the Ismailis with the Sufis due
to their potential affinity, the Sunni Muslims and others had designated the
Ismailis too with the same term. Franz Rosenthal writes, 'It is worthy of note
that attacks on the Ismailiyah accusing them of being hashish eaters were
apparently not made very often, although this would have been an effective
verbal slur.' (op. cit., p. 43) Paul Johnson writes in his 'Civilizations of
the Holy Land' (London, 1979, p. 211) that, 'Much nonsense has been written
about this sect, which had nothing to do with hashish.' Curiously enough, the
term seems to have become so specific for the Syrian Ismailis that the Sufi
circles using hashish had been ignored to be designated alike. After the schism
of Nizari and Musta'lian, the influence of the Musta'lians in Syria was less
than the Nizaris, and therefore, the Musta'lian faction also shifted this
misnomer on the rival group. It is not surprising that when people cannot find
the solution of a difficulty in the natural manner, they concoct a supernatural
explanation, just as when they like or dislike a thing, they go to extremes,
invent and contrive superstitious tales and give vent to credulous stories
tinged with different misnomers.
The Musta'lian group was designated by the Nizari Ismailis
in Syria as Jamat al-Amiriyya, and the latter were lebelled by the former as
Jamat al-Hashishiyya as the Musta'lian group did not like that the rival group
be known as Jamat al-Nizaria. Soon afterwards, the Musta'lian group disappeared
almost from Syria in 524/1130, but they left behind the name Hashishiyya in
their sources, and thus, it became a general usage for the Nizari Ismailis in
Syria since 517/1123.
The occidental chroniclers, travellers and envoys to the
Latin East borrowed the term Hashishiyya for the Ismailis of Syria, whom they
pronounced as Hashishin, Heyssessini or Haisasins. Silvestre de Sacy delivered
a lecture entitled 'Memoirs on the Dynasty of the Assassins and the origin of
their name' on May 19, 1809 in the Institute of France, which was a landmark in
the relative study. In addition to the few oriental sources published or
referred by previous scholars, de Sacy was able to draw on the rich Paris
collection of Arabic manuscripts, and states that, 'Nor should there be any
doubt, in my opinion, that the word hashishi, plural hashishin, is the origin
of the corruption heissessini, assassini, and assissini. It should not surprise
us that the Arabic shin was transcribed by all our writers who used the Latin
language by an s, and in the Greek historians by a sigma. They had no choice.
It should, moreover be observed that the shin is pronounced less strongly than
ch in French. What can rightly be asked is the reason why the Ismailis or
Batinis were called Hashishis.'
After picking up the word Hashishiyya for the Syrian
Ismailis, the Crusaders attested further fabrications. The daring behavior of
the Ismaili fidais, who usually carried their mission - a struggle for
survival, had exceedingly impressed the Crusaders, who would rarely endanger
their own lives for other than worldly rewards. The Crusaders failed to compete
with the valour of the Ismaili fidais, therefore, they propagated that they
were using hashish before fighting, but they forgot to understand that the
drunkenness caused by hashish merely consists of a kind of quiet ecstasy,
rather than a vehemence apt to fire the courage to undertake and carry out
daring and dangerous missions. Franz Rosenthal writes in 'The Herb: Hashish
versus Medieval Muslim Society' (Leiden, 1971, pp. 42-3) that, 'It has been
pointed out that hashish does not have the properties that would ordinarily
make it a serviceable stimulant for anyone being sent on a dangerous mission of
assassination.' The editors of 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' write in 'The Arabs'
(New York, 1978, p. 94) that, 'Stories of the terrorists' use of hashish before
setting out to commit murder and face martyrdom are doubtful.' Bosworth also
writes in 'The Islamic Dynasties' (cf. Islamic Survey, series no. 5, Edinburgh,
1967, p. 128) that, 'The story related by Marco Polo and others, that
hallucinatory drugs were used to stimulate the assassins to bolder efforts is
unconfirmed in any of the genuine Ismaili sources.' The Muslim authors, unlike
the western authors, did not fantasize about the real spirit of sacrifice of
the fidais in defending their faith around aggressive milieu. Instead of
knowing their struggle, they branded them with the then prevalent abusive term,
Hashishiyya. Hence, the misnomer Hashishiyya, picked up by the Crusaders in the
beginning of the second half of the 12th century, mainly through oral channels,
came to be pronounced as Hashishin, Heyssessini or Haisasins. It further
underwent corruptions, and evolved as Axasin, Accini, Assassini, Assacis,
Ashishin, Assassini, and finally resulted the modern genesis of the English
word, Assassin. It later was coloured by spurious and extravagant fables,
smacking exaggeration in western popular lore and literature.
It deserves notice, however, that Henry, Count of Champagne
(d. 593/1197) had visited the Syrian Ismaili territories in 590/1194, where he
had personally alleged to have witnessed the falling down of the two Ismaili
fidais from a lofty turret upon the signal of the Ismaili leader to demonstrate
an example of obedience. This event became famous in the occidental sources
bluntly by the end of 13th century without perception of the spirit of
sacrifice of the fidais. Thus, in the West, the Ismailis have been the subjects
of several hotchpotch of legends, and were portraited in different terms, so as
to designate them ultimately as Assassins. Farhad Daftary writes in'The
Assassin Legends' (London, 1994, p. 84) that, 'In sum, mediaeval Europeans
learned very little about Islam and Muslims, and their less informed knowledge
of the Ismailis found expression in a few superficial observations and
erroneous perceptions scattered in Crusader histories and other occidental
sources.'
