So writes James Wasserman, American occultist and author of the (relatively) renowned book, The Templars and the Assassins. Wasserman’s words, if true, imply that Hassan bin Sabbah was the one who turned “assassination into an art form” in order to minimise the collateral damage of gaining a political advantage.
The most astounding aspect of the Hashshashin's skills of assassination is their ability to wear a vast variety of disguises
Despite the American writer’s opinion, assassination itself has been around in the world for the past many centuries, conceived hundreds of years before Nizari Isma’ilism or even Islam emerged. What Wasserman probably meant, then, is perhaps that Hassan bin Sabbah made assassination “cool”, to use an appropriate urban slang alternative to making something an art form. This claim does not seem to be too amiss, considering how Hassan bin Sabbah’s group of Nizari Isma’ilis gained popularity (or notoriety) for their assassinations, above all else - or vice versa, as some scholars, including Dr. Farhad Daftary, suggest that the word ‘assassin’ itself was a European linguistic corruption of the word “Hashshashin”, the derogatory term used for the Nizari Isma’ilis by some of their contemporaries.
Furthermore, what adds to the celebrity of Hassan bin Sabbah and his group is the fact that they were lauded for their bravery by many of their contemporaries. Ibn al-Qalanisi (b. 1071 AD, d. 1160 AD), for instance, who served twice as the mayor of Damascus during the era in which the activities of the Hashshashin were at their peak in Syria, wrote in his Mudhayyal Ta’rikh Dimashq (“Continuation of the Chronicle of Damascus”) that the group were “noted for their courage and gallantry”. This led Ibn al-Qalanisi’s translator, H.A.R. Gibb, to call the Hashshashin “the celebrated Batini movement”. It is important to note that most of the chroniclers who recorded the history of the Assassins were hostile towards them, which adds weight to the little praise that they reward the group with.
It can, thus, be concluded that the Hashshashin and the political tool of assassination did indeed have a deep connection, which led some to loathe them and others to revere them. But who were these people that the Hashshashin assassinated? How did they do it? And, above all, why? These questions quite often bother one who is attempting to learn more about the eccentric sect. Luckily for us, medieval chroniclers, both primary and secondary sources, contain accounts of the murders suspected - or claimed - to be committed by the Hashshashin. Let us look at a few of the more recognisable amongst the Hashshashin’s presumed targets and the way in which they met their ends.
Nizam-al-Mulk Hasan bin Ali bin Ish?q of Tus – October 16, 1092 AD/ Ramadan 12, 485 AH
It is generally believed – and supported by Juvaini - that Nizam-al-Mulk Tusi, the famous Seljuq vizier, was the Hashshashin’s first victim. Later historians like Ibn Khaldun also recognize the act, but do not mention if it was the first of the Order’s assassinations. Ibn al-Athir - another important chronicler of the era - however, differs: stating that a muezzin from Saveh, who had declined the Nizaris’ call to their faith in the sect’s early years, was their first victim. However, Ibn al-Athir’s account is otherwise littered with inconsistencies and mistakes, especially with events concerning the Hashshashin, which is what renders his account weak. Therefore the “honour” of being the Assassins’ first victim most likely belongs to Nizam-al-Mulk. Juvaini gives a detailed description of the Seljuk vizier’s assassination in his Tarikh-i-Jahangushay:
“Hassan-i-Sabbah spread the snare of artifices in order at the first opportunity to catch some splendid game, such as Nizam-al-Mulk, in the net of destruction and increase thereby his own reputation. With the juggling of deceit and the trickery of falsehood, with absurd preparations and spurious deceptions, he laid the basis of the fida’is. A person called Bu-Tahir, Arrani by name and by origin, was afflicted ‘with loss both of this world and of the next’, and in his misguided striving after bliss in the world to come on the night of Friday the 12th of Ramazan, 485 [16th of October, 1092] he went up to Nizam-al-Mulk’s litter at a stage called Sahna in the region of Nihavand. Nizam-al-Mulk having broken the fast, was being borne in the litter from the Sultan’s audience-place to the tent of his harem. Bu-Tahir who was disguised as a Sufi, stabbed him with a dagger and b y that blow Nizam-al-Mulk was martyred.”
Other than the detailed description of the event, notice also how the author Ata Malik Juvaini leaves no stone unturned in his attempts to denigrate the sect with insults. Instances like this are very common in medieval Muslim chronicles, leading modern historians to dismiss their works as biased against the Hashshashin.
Abbasid Caliph al-Mustarshid bi-Allah – August 29, 1135 AD/ Dhu’l Qa’da 17, 529 AH
One of the most high-profile assassinations allegedly - agreed upon by Ibn al-Athir, Juvaini, and Ibn Khaldun - carried out by the Hashshashin was that of the Abbasid caliph al-Mustarshid bi-Allah Abu Mansur, in 1135 AD.
The caliph was held in confinement inside a tent by Seljuq Sultan Mas’ud, after the former had charged against and lost in battle to the latter in June-July 1135 AD/ Ramadan 529 AH. It was in this state of isolation that on the 29th of August 1135 AD, twenty-four Hashshashin entered his tent and murdered him by giving him as much as twenty wounds. Not only was this one of the most prolific murders conducted by the Order, it was also the most ruthless: after dealing twenty blows to him, the Hashshashin mutilated al-Mustarshid’s body by “cutting off his nose and ears and [leaving] him naked” (words from Ibn al-Athir’s chronicle). This was, perhaps, the first time the Order of the Assassins turned an assassination into a terrorising message. Indeed, target-killing people in of itself is a warning, but mutilating their dead bodies makes the warning all the more haunting and hence effective.
The strangest aspect of this murder was that al-Mustarshid did not have any particular history with the Hashshashin. He had not launched any offensive against their castles - which was one of the most common reasons why the group assassinated their adversaries - nor did he actively engage them in battle, to the writer’s knowledge. In fact he had, as stated, recently locked horns with a common enemy: the Seljuq Sultan Ghiyath ad-Din Mas’ud. Was his status as the crowned caliph of the Sunni Abbasid Caliphate the only reason behind al-Mustarshid’s violent assassination? Or was it that other forces - such as the Seljuq Sultan, himself - hired the Hashshashin to carry out the task, so that they could achieve the murder without having to face the blame for it? We can never be completely sure.
Abu Ja’far ibn al-Mushat – 1104-05 AD/498 AH
Abu Ja’far ibn al-Mushat - assassinated in 498 AH - represents a different category of people targeted by the Hashshashin: religious scholars. Ibn al-Athir states that Ab? Ja’far was “one of the leading Shafi’i scholars” who had “learnt his law from al-Khujandi and used to teach and give sermons in Rayy”. He was assassinated as he was stepping down from his teaching stool.
Shihab al-Din Ghauri – March 13, 1206 AD/ Sha’ban 1, 602 AH
When Shihab al-Din Abu’l Muzaffar Muhammad ibn Sam al-Ghauri was assassinated, he was the reigning ruler of the Ghurid dynasty that, at the time, spread from Khorasan in Persia to Bengal at the far east of India - and is probably a name better recognised by most South Asians. Ibn al-Athir states that the Khokhars were probably behind Shihab al-Din’s murder, but the Hashshashin, too, are suspected of committing the act. Ibn al-Athir describes the incident in the following words:
“When his men had left him [Shihab al-Din] and he remained alone in a tent, this group [the Khokhars] sprang into action. One of them killed one of the guards at the entrance to Shihab al-Din’s pavilion. When he was killed, he cried out and his comrades rushed to see what was wrong with him and left their posts. There was a great commotion and the Khokars took advantage of this neglect of their watch. They went in to Shihab al-Din in his tent and struck him with their daggers twenty-four blows and slew him. His men came in and found him on his prayer mat dead, in a position of prostration. They seized these infidels and killed them. Two of their number were circumcised men.
The Nizari Isma'ilis were, most likely, not holy killers or jihadists who killed in the name of their religion
“It is claimed that it was the Isma’ilis who killed him because they feared his expedition into Khorasan. He had an army that was besieging one of their fortresses[.]”
Shihab al-Din’s assassination was very characteristic of those carried out by the Hashshashin. He was a fierce political adversary: a very strong threat to the Nizari Isma’ili strongholds and to the sect’s safety and strength throughout Khorasan. It is important to note that Ghuri had been murdered while he was offering prayers. Traditionally, Islam forbids its followers from attacking a person while he is engaged in the act of offering prayers, because at that moment in time, he or she is utterly defenseless. Indeed, it is - and must always have been - considered shameful in the Muslim world to harm someone while he or she is praying. Thus, if the Hashshashin did indeed assassinate Shihab al-Din, they did so by overlooking one of the most basic rules of battle laid down by Islam, and, in turn, disrespecting the religion itself.
Fatimid Caliph al-Amir – October 7, 1130 AD/ Dhu’l Qa’da 2, 524 AH
Fatimid Caliph, al-Amir bi-Ahk?m Allah Abu ‘Ali ibn al-Musta’li – the son of the brother of Nizar, al-Mustali – was also allegedly murdered by the Nizaris. The allegation has been leveled by Ibn al-Athir, who states that the caliph was murdered because “he was a bad ruler of his subjects”. Ibn Al-Qalanisi, on the other hand, does not mention the incident at all.
The motive behind the murder given by Ibn al-Athir is ironic, since there is no logical reason why the Nizaris would have been concerned about the well-being of al-?mir’s subjects. The allegation on the Hashshashin becomes even weaker when we consider the fact that the Fatimid caliph was murdered inside his own pleasure ground. However, rightfully or wrongfully, the Hashshashin were, indeed, accused of murdering this Isma’ili Fatimid caliph, as well.
Salah al-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub – May 1176 AD/ Dhu’l Qa’da 571 AH (Assassination Attempt)
The assassination attempt on Salah al-Din Ayyubi, the famed Muslim counter-crusader, went unrewarded for the Hashshashin. The renowned Muslim general was attacked by two Nizaris in the middle of 1176 AD while he held the castle of A’zaz - approximately 50 kilometers north of Aleppo - under siege. If Ibn al-Athir is to be believed, Salah aa-Din had only his mailed helmet and brigandine to thank for saving his life that day.
Baha’ al-Din Ibn Shaddad, the biographer of Salah ad-Din, remembers the event in the following words in his al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa’l-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya:
“He [Salah-al-Din] then went to the castle of A’z?z to put it under siege. This was on 4 Dhu’l Qa’da 571 [15 May 1176] and while he was there, the Isma’ilis tried to assassinate him, but God delivered him from their plots and gave them into his hands.”
Conrad of Montferrat – April 28, 1192 AD/ Rabi al-Thani 13, 588 AH
The assassination of Conrad, Marquis of Montferrat - also Conrad I of Jerusalem - was perhaps the one that immortalised the name of the Assassins in the western world, even if for all the wrong reasons. Ibn al-Athir gives a surprisingly detailed account of the assassination:
“Saladin made contact with the head of the Isma’ilis in Syria, namely, Sinan, and encouraged him to send someone to kill the king of England. If he killed the Marquis, he would have ten thousand dinars. They were unable to assassinate the king and Sinan did not see any advantage for them in it, [being eager] that Saladin should not have a mind untroubled by the Franks and thus be free to deal with them. He was greedy to get money, so he was inclined toward killing the Marquis. He sent two men disguised as monks, who became associated with the lord of Sidon and Balian’s son the lord of Ramla. They were both with the Marquis in Tyre. The two stayed with them for six months, making a show of piety. The Marquis became acquainted with them and trusted them. On the above date the bishop at Tyre gave a banquet for the Marquis. He attended, ate his food and drank his wine and left. The two Batinis we have mentioned leapt on him and wounded him severely. One of them fled and entered a church to hide. It chanced that the Marquis was carried there to have his wounds bound. This assassin attacked and slew him. Both Batinis were killed in due course.”
For the Franks, the chief suspect for instigating the murder was Richard I, the king of England, because “he wished to become the sole ruler of the Syrian littoral” (Ibn al-Athir).
If Ibn al-Athir’s account of the incident is to be believed, there are several points that can be deduced from his narrative. Firstly, if the murder of Conrad was carried out at Salah al-Din’s behest, then the Hashshashin can be confirmed as contract killers in the purest form: they killed for money. Secondly, the wide expanse of the Order’s reach is reaffirmed, considering the king of Jerusalem would have been extremely hard to access. Not only did the Nizaris reach him, but also managed to train their men well enough to be able to infiltrate the king’s guard, win his trust and subsequently assassinate him. Third and last is the fact that the fida’is were extremely dedicated to their cause, since they did not leave their place or run and save their lives after wounding the Marquis: they made sure they killed him even if that meant losing their lives, which they most often did.
Conclusion: Methods of Assassination and Motives
Among the many things that the historians of Nizari Isma’ilism ought to thank medieval chroniclers for are their detailed descriptive accounts of the Hashshashin’s assassinations. It is hard to tell how much of these accounts were developed by the chroniclers’ own imagination, how much was a product of exaggeration that almost always makes its way through to hearsay and how much was the real truth. However, when more than one chronicler presents the same information, it is somewhat authenticated - or as authenticated as thousand-years-old information can be.
The targets of the Order of the Assassins discussed above are but a few of the most important - there were dozens others that the Order put to death. However, studying these and others, manages to show an obvious trend in the method of assassination chosen by the Hashshashin. Going through the accounts of the group’s assassinations, it is easy to spot the fida’is’ (hitmen’s) weapons of choice: varieties of a short stabbing device - the dagger, knife or poniard - a sword, or, occasionally, a spear. A short knife was perhaps their most preferred weapon. Furthermore, the fida’is, more often than not, lost their lives while carrying out the tasks handed to them. Therefore these murders were in fact what is known today as a suicide attack.
Arguably the most astounding aspect of the Hashshashin’s skills of assassination is their ability to wear a vast variety of disguises, which was their chief weapon of infiltration. From Sufi mystics as in the case of Nizam al-Mulk Tusi and Janah ad-Dawla; to beggars as in the case of Emir Mawdud; to Turks as in the case of Taj al-Mul?k; and even to Christian monks as in the case of Conrad I of Jerusalem: the ability of the fida’is to adapt to such an array of guises is impressive. What is even more remarkable is the Nizari lords’ ability to train the assassins to perform all of these tasks, and it is a pity that the ?ashshashin’s own literature is most likely lost or we might have found out the exact training techniques employed by them.
It is also important to notice that the Nizaris felt no shame in working with people who did not share their beliefs. The Franks, for instance, were not the Nizaris’ particular favourites, but they did join them when Alp Arslan started to persecute the followers of the sect. Similarly, Al-Mazdaqani, one of the Hashshashin’s earliest aides in Syria, did not share their beliefs, yet they worked with him, too. This, very importantly, shows that there is no visible trend of religious exclusivity in the Order’s activities. This observation is reaffirmed by the fact that the Hashshashin’s targets were very diverse in terms of their faith. They assassinated Sunnis, al-Musta’li Isma’ilis, Shi’i and Christians, alike. This points to the fact that their killings were generated more out of political aspirations and self-defence than religious motives - whether or not they killed to advance their own political agenda or were paid to protect another’s makes little difference in this context. This further points to the fact that the Nizari Isma’ilis were, most likely, not holy killers or jihadists who killed in the name of their religion. They were, most likely, just a persecuted community who took up arms in order to survive in a sea of adversaries.