1 Rashīd al-Dīn, 97; Kāshānī, 120. Juvaynī, 187/667, has asan born in Rayy to which, according to other sources, he was taken as a child. This difference would seem to be due to careless abridgement by Juvaynī. According to Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1201), asan came originally from Marv, and had served as secretary to the ra’īs ’Abd al-Razzāq ibn Bahrām when he was a young man (Al-Muntaam, ix, Hyderabad 1359, 121; idem, Talbīs Iblīs, Cairo 1928, no; English translation by D. S. Margoliouth, The Devil’s Delusion’, in IC, ix, 1935, 555). In the alleged letter from asan to Malikshāh, he says that his father was a Shāfi ‘ī Sunnī, and that he was brought up as such. This is one of several details that throw doubt on the authenticity of the letter. See Hodgson, 43; Falsafī, 406.
2 Juvaynī, 188-9/667-8; Rashīd al-Dīn, 97-9; Kāshānī, 120-3; Hodgson, 44-5. On Ibn ‘Aāsh see EI(2) s.v. (by B. Lewis).
3 Rashīd al-Dīn, 110-2. On the three schoolfellows story see E. G. Browne, ‘Yet more light on ‘Umar-i Khayyām’, in JRAS (1899), 409-16; H. Bowen, article cited above; Browne, Lit. hist., 190-3; M. Th. Houtsma, Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seldjoucides, ii, Leiden 1889, preface, pp. xiv-xv, n. 2; Hodgson, 137-8. Falsafī (406-10) defends the authenticity of the story. A late Egyptian source (Ibn al-Dawādāri, Kan al-durar, vi, ed. §alāh al-Din al-Munajjid, Cairo 1961, 494) says that asan-i abbā was a fellow-student of Ghazālī. This would seem to be due to a misunderstanding.
4 Ibn al-Athīr, anno 494, x, 215-6/viii, 201; cf. idem, anno 427, ix, 304-5/viii, 11, and anno 487, x, 161/viii, 172-3. According to Ibn al-Athir, asan travelled to Egypt disguised as a merchant. See further Maqrīzī, Muqaffā, s.v. al-asan ibn al-abbā.
5 asan’s own account of his journey to and from Egypt underlies the three versions of Juvaynī, 189-91/668-9, Rashīd al-Dīn, 99-103, and Kāshānī, 122-5. Cf. Hodgson, 45-7 (the error concerning the length of asans stay in Egypt is corrected in the same author’s article in EI(2) ); Falsafī, 411-2. It is clear from asan’s own account that he did not personally meet the Fatimid Caliph, and that Ibn al-Athīr’s story of such a meeting, and of the Caliph’s deliberately ambiguous naming of his heir, is therefore untrue (see Asaf A. A. Fyzee, Al-Hidāyatu’l-Āmirīya, London-Calcutta 1938, 15). The apocryphal letter of Hasan to Malikshāh contains the curious assertion that the Commander of the Armies was incited against him by the Abbasid Caliph, and that he was saved from the plots of his enemies by the Imam himself.
6 Juvaynī, 190/669.
7 Ibn al-Faqīh, Mukhtaar Kitāb al-Buldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden 1885, 283; cit. V. Minorsky, La domination des Dailamites, Paris 1932, 5.
8 Ibn al-Athīr, anno 494, x, 215 /viii, 201.
9 Juvaynī, 193/669-70.
10 Juvaynī, 193-5/669-71; Rashīd al-Dīn, 103-5; Kāshānī, 125-8; Ibn al-Athīr, anno 494, x, 216/viii, 201-2; Hodgson, 48-50; Falsafi, 413-4.
11 Rashīd al-Dīn, 134; variant versions in Kāshānī, 154 and Juvaynī, 216/683. Characteristically, Juvaynī changes da‘vat (mission) to bid‘at (heretical innovation).
12 Juvaynī, 199/673-4; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 107; Kāshānī, 130.
13 Juvaynī, 208-9/679; Rashīd al-Dīn, 115-16; Kāshānī, 136-7.
14 Juvaynī, 200/674; Rashīd al-Dīn, 107-8; Kāshānī, 130-1; Ibn al-Athīr, anno 494, x, 217/viii, 202; Hodgson, 74.
15 Ibn al-Athīr, anno 494, x, 217/viii, 202; Hodgson, 76.
16 Ibn al-Jawzī, Al-Muntaam, ix, Hyderabad 1359 A.H., 120-1; idem, Talbīs Iblīs, Cairo 1928, 110 (English translation by D. S. Margoliouth in IC, ix, 1935, 555), Ibn al-Athīr, anno 494, x, 213/ viii, 200-1; Hodgson, 47-8.
17 Juvaynī, 201-2/674-5; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 108-9; Kāshānī, 131; Hodgson, 74-5.
18 Rashīd al-Dīn, 110; cf. Juvaynī, 204/676-7 (and the editor’s note on pp. 406-7 of the text); Kāshānī, 132-3; Ibn al-Athīr, anno 485, x, 137-8/viii, 161-2; M. Th. Houtsma, ‘The death of Niam al-Mulk and its consequences’, in Journal of Indian History-, iii (1924), 147-60; Hodgson, 75.
19 Persian text edited by Muh. Taqī Dānishpazhūh in Revue de la Faculté des Lettres, Université de Tabri, xvii/3, 1344 s., 329. In this and the following issues Dr Dānishpazhūh has published a group of interesting sources, mostly polemical, concerning the Ismailis.
20 W. Ivanow, ‘An Ismaili poem in praise of fidawis’, in JBBRAS, xiv (1938), 63-72.
21 W. Ivanow, ‘The organization of the Fatimid propaganda’, in JBBRAS, xv (1939), 1-35; cf. the same author’s remarks in the introductions to his editions of the Divan of Khaki Khorasani (Bombay 1933, 11) and of the Haft bob of Abu Ishaq Quhistani (Bombay 1959, 011-14). See further the articles ‘dā‘ī’ (by H. G. S. Hodgson) and ‘da‘wa’ (by M. Canard) in EI(2). The ranks are discussed by Naīr al-Dīn Ṭ ūsī, The Rawdatu’l-Taslim, commonly called Tasawwurat, ed. and translated by W. Ivanow, Bombay 1950, text 96-7, translation 143–4. For a modern Ismaili account, based on some early material, see Mian Bhai Mulla Abdul Husain, Gulari Daudi for the Bohras of India, Ahmedabad n.d. [? 1920].
22 Juvaynī, 207-8/678-9; Rashīd al-Dīn, 116-20; Kāshānī, 137-41; Hodgson, 76 n. and 86-7. On the castle of Girdkūh see W. Ivanow, ‘Some Ismaili strongholds in Persia’, in IC, xii (1938), 392-6, and Manučehr Sutūdah, ‘Qal ‘a-i Girdkūh’, in Mihr, viii (1331 s), 339-43 and 484-90.
23 The rise and fall of the Ismailis in Isfahan seem to have received little attention in the chronicle of Alamūt. Juvaynī has nothing to say on the subject; Rashīd al-Dīn (120 f.) and Kāshānī (142. f.) give brief accounts, which may be based on other, non-Ismaili sources. The episode is discussed in the general sources for the period, e.g. Ibn ar-Rāwandī, Rāat-u-udūr, ed. Mu Iqbál, London 1921, 155-61; Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī, Saljūqnāme, Tehran 1332 s., 39-42; Ibn al-Jawzī, Muntaam, ix, 150-1. Al-Bundārī, abridged from ‘Imād al-Dīn, Histoire des Seldjoucides de l’Iraq, ed. M. Th. Houtsma, Leiden 1889, 90-2; Ibn al-Athīr, anno 494, x, 215–17/viii, 201–4; anno 500, x, 299–302/viii, 242–3, etc. Modern studies: Hodgson, 85–6, 88-9, 95–6; Lewis, ‘Ibn ‘Attāsh’ in EI(2) s.v.; Muh. Mihryar, ‘Shāhdiz Kujāst?’, in Revue de la Faculté des Lettres d’ Isfahan, i (1343/1965), 87-157,
24 Ibn al-Athīr, anno 494, x, 220/viii, 203.
25 Ibn al-Athīr, anno 497, x, 260/viii, 223.
26 Ibn al-Athīr, anno 494, x, 221/viii, 204.
27 Ibn al-Athīr, anno 500, x, 299/viii, 242. Ibn al-Athīr gives the fullest account of the siege.
28 Ibn al-Qalānisī, History of Damascus, ed. H. F. Amedroz, Beirut 1908, 153; French translation by R. Le Tourneau, Damas de 1075 à 1154, Damascus 1952, 68-9.
29 Juvaynī, 211/680; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 124-5; Kāshānī, 135-6; Ibn al-Qalānisī, 162 (= Le Tourneau, 83-4);al-Bundārī, 98-100; Ibn al-Athīr, anno 503, x, 335/viii, 259; Hodgson, 97.
30 Juvaynī, 207/678.
31 Juvaynī, 212/681; Rashīd al-Dīn, 126–32; Kāshānī, 141 ff.; Ibn al-Athīr, anno 511, x, 369-70/ix, 278.
32 Al-Bundārī, 147.
33 Juvaynī, 213-5/681-2; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 123; Kāshānī, 144. A Syrian Ismaili author tells the story of the dagger and the message in relation to Saladin.
34 Ibn al-Qalānisī, 203; English translation by H. A. R. Gibb, The Damascus chronicle of the Crusades, London 1932, 163.
35 Rashīd al-Dīn, 133, 137; cf. Kāshānī, 153, 156.
36 Ibn Muyassar, Annales d’Egypte, 65-6; cf. ibid. 68-9; Ibn al-Şayrafī, Al-Ishāra ilā man nāla’l-wiāra, ed. Ali Mukhlis, in BIFAO, xxv (1925), 49; S. M. Stern, ‘The epistle of the Fatimid Caliph al-Āmir (al-Hidāya al-Āmiriyya) – its date and purpose’, in JRAS, (1950), 20-31; Hodgson, 108-9.
37 Juvaynī, 215/682-3; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 133-4; Kāshānī, 153-4.
38 Ibn al-Athīr, anno 494, x, 216/viii, 201; Maqrīzī, Muqaffā, s.v. al-asan ibn al-abbā.
39 Juvaynī, 210/680; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 124; Kāshānī, 145.
40 ibid.
41 On the autobiography, see the bibliographical note to this chapter, above. The abridgement of his treatise, called the
four chapters, is given in an Arabic version by the twelfth-century heresiographer al-Shahrastani, in his work Al-Milal wa’l-nial, cited above; English translation in Hodgson, 325-8.
Chapter 4
Much of what was said above concerning the sources for the career of asan-i abbā also applies to the history of the Ismailis in Persia in the period between his death and the Mongol conquest. Our main source is still the chronicles of Alamūt, as cited by Juvaynī, Rashīd al-Dīn, and Kāshānī. The extant literature of the Nizari Ismailis is mainly religious in content, but preserves some passages of historical interest. Additional information may be gathered from the general historical and other literature relating to the Seljuq, Khorazmian and Mongol periods, in Arabic and Persian. Very few of these works have as yet been translated into a European language. Apart from Professor Boyle’s translation of Juvaynī, mention may be made of the following: Ch. Defrémery, ‘Histoire des Seldjoucides’ [the Tārīkh-i Guīda of amdullah Mustawfī], in JA,, xi (1848), 417-62; xii (1848), 259-79, 334-70; H. G. Raverty, abaāt-i-Nāirī [by Minhāj-i Sirāj Juzjāni], 2 vols., London 1881; O. Houdas, Histoire du Sultan Djelal ed-Din Mankobirti [by Muammad al-Nasawī], Paris 1895; E. G. Browne, History of Tabaristan [by Ibn Isfandiyār], London 1905. A group of coins from the Ismaili mint, struck in 542/1147-8, 548/ 1153-4, 551/1156-7, and 555/1160-1, was examined by P. Casanova, ‘Monnaie des Assassins de Perse’, in Revue Numismatique, 3e série, xi (1893), 343-52. A small Ismaili gold coin is preserved in the Istanbul Museum of Antiquities (E 175).
The basic monograph on the history of the Ismailis is that of Professor Hodgson, where earlier work by other scholars, notably W. Ivanow, is discussed. Briefer accounts will be found in the articles, ‘Alamūt’, ‘Buzurg-ummīd’, etc. in EI(2). Particular aspects of Ismaili history have been discussed by Mme L. V. Stroyeva, ‘ “Den’ voskresenya iz mertvikh” i ego sotsial’naya sushčnost’ ’, in Kratkiye Soobshčeniya Instituta Vostokovedeniya, xxxviii (1960), 19-25, and ‘Poslednii Khorezmshah i Ismailiti Alamuta’, in Issledovaniya po istorii kul’turt narodov vostoka: sbornik v čest’ Akademika I. A. Orbeli, Moscow-Leningrad 1960, 451-63. Some account of the Ismailis and their place in local history is given by H.L. Rabino di Borgomale, ‘Les dynasties locales du Gîlân et du Daylam’, in JA, ccxxxvii (1949), 301 ff, especially 314-6.
On the Seljuqs and their successors, reference may be made to the chapters by Claude Cahen in K. M. Setton (editor-in-chief), A history of the Crusades, vol. i, ed. M. W. Baldwin, Philadelphia 1955, chapter 5, and vol. ii, edd. R.L. Wolff and H. W. Hazard, 1962, chapters 19 and 21, and to relevant articles in EI(1) and EI(2). Detailed works by Turkish, Persian and Arab scholars include: Osman Turan, Selčuklular tarihi ve Türk-Islâm medeniyeti, Ankara 1965; Mehmed Altay Köymen, Büyük Selçuklu Imparatorluğu tarihi, ii, Ikinci Imparatorluk devri, Ankara 1954; usayn Amīn, Ta’rīkh al-‘Irāq fi’l-ar al-Saljüqī Baghdad 1965; Ibrahim Kafesoğlu, Haremahler devleti tarihi, Ankara 1956; ‘Abbās Eghbāl, Tārīkh-i mufaal-i Irān . . ., i, Tehran 1341 s.
1 Ibn al-Athīr, anno 520, x, 445/viii, 319; cf. Ibn Funduq Bayhaqī, Tārikh-i Bayhaq, ed. Ahmad Bahmanyar, Tehran, n.d., 271, 276; Köymen, 151-6; Hodgson, 101-2,
2 Ibn al-Athīr, anno 521, x, 456/viii, 325; cf. Khwāndamīr, Dastūr al-vuarā, Tehran 1317, 198; Nāsir al-Dīn Munshi Kirmāni, Nasā’im al-asār, ed. Jalal al-Dīn Muaddith, Tehran 1959, 64-9; ‘Abbās Eghbāl, Vaārat dar ’ahd-i salāīn-i buurg-i Saljūqī, Tehran 1338 s., 254-60.
3 Rashīd al-Dīn, 138; Kāshānī, 158. The construction of Maymundiz is not mentioned by Juvaynī. For a detailed description of the site see Willey, The castles of the Assassins, 158 ff.
4 Tārīkh-i Sīstān, ed. Bahār, Tehran 1935, 391.
5 Rashīd al-Dīn, 140; Kāshānī, 159.
6 Juvaynī, 220-1/685; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 141-2; Kāshānī, 164-5; Hodgson, 104.
7 Rashīd al-Dīn, 142; Kāshānī, 165; Hodgson, 103.
8 Rashīd al-Dīn, 141; Kāshānī, 160-4 (a very full account); Hodgson, 103.
9 Juvaynī, 221/685.
10 Rashīd al-Dīn, 146; Kāshānī, 168.
11 Rashīd al-Dīn, 146-7; Kāshānī, 168-9; Ibn al-Athir, anno 532, xi, 40-1 /viii, 362; Köymen, 304; Kafesoğlu, 26; Hodgson, 143-4.
12 Rashīd al-Dīn, 155; Kāshānī, 176; Ibn al-Athir, anno 541, xi, 76-7/ix, 15; Hodgson, 145-6.
13 Juvaynī, 222-4/686-7; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 162-4; Kāshānī, 183-4.
14 Abu Ishāq Quhistāni, Haft bāb, ed. and trans, by W. Ivanow, Bombay 1959, 41; cf. W. Ivanow, Kalām-i Pīr, Bombay 1935, 60-1 and 115-7; Juvaynī, 226-30/668-91; Rashīd al-Dīn, 164 ff.; Kāshānī, 184 ff.; other Ismaili accounts in the Haft bāb-i Bābā Sayyidna (ed. Ivanow in Two early Ismaili treatises, Bombay 1933, English translation, with commentary, in Hodgson, Assassins, 279-324) and in ūsi’s Rawat al-taslīm (index). Discussions in Hodgson, 148–57; Bausani, Persia religiosa, 211-2; H. Corbin and Moh. Mo‘in, edd., Nair-i Khosrow, Kitab-e Jami‘ al-hikmatain, Tehran-Paris 1953, introduction, 22-5; Stroyeva, ‘Den’ voskresenya . . .’, loc. cit. (in bibliographical note above).
15 Juvaynī, 230/691; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 166; Kāshānī, 186.
16 Juvaynī, 237-8/695-6; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 168-9; Kāshānī, 188. Similar doctrines are attributed to the strangler sects in the eighth century. See above pp. 26 and 128.
17 Rashīd al-Dīn, 169; cf. Juvaynī, 238/696; Kāshānī, 188 (with some extracts from pious Ismaili eulogies of asan).
18 Juvaynī, 239/697; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 169-70; Kāshānī, 191; Hodgson, 157-9.
19 Rashīd al-Dīn, 170‒3; cf. Kāshānī, 192-4; Hodgson, 183.
20 P. Kraus, ‘Les “Controverses” de Fakhr al-Dīn Razi’, in BIE, xix (1936-7), 206 ff. (English version in IC, xii, 1938, 146 ff.).
21 Juvaynī, 241-4/698-701; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 174 ff.; Kāshānī, 198 ff; Hodgson, 217 ff.
22 Juvaynī, 247/702‒3; Kāshānī, 199; Hodgson, 224-5.
23 Juvaynī, 248/703; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 177-8; Kāshānī, 200-1.
24 Juvaynī, 249/703–4; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 178; Kāshānī, 201.
25 Hammer, History of the Assassins, 154–5.
26 Naīr al-Dīn ūsī, Rawat al-taslīm, text, 49, translation, 67-8; cf. Hodgson, 229–31.
27 Juvaynī, 249-53/704-7; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 179 ff.; Kāshānī, 201 ff.
28 Mohammed en-Nesawi [Nasawī], Histoire du Sultan Djelal ed-Dīn Mankobirti, ed. O. Houdas, Paris 1891, 132-4; French translation, Paris 1895, 220-3. A nearly contemporary Persian translation was edited by Prof. Mujtabâ Minovi, Sīrat-e Jelāloddīn, Tehran 1965, 163-6.
29 Nasawī, Arabic text, 214-5; French translation, 358-9; Persian text, 232-3.
30 Rashīd al-Dīn, 181; cf. Kāshānī, 205; Hodgson, 257.
31 Juvaynī, 253-6/707-9; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 182-4; Kāshānī, 205-6.
33 Juvaynī, 260/712-3; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 185-6; Kāshānī, 207.
34 Juvaynī, 265/716; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 189; Kāshānī, 209.
35 Juvaynī 267/717; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 190; Kāshānī, 210.
36 Rashīd al-Dīn, 192. Kāshānī, 213, calls her a Turk; Juvaynī, 274/ 722 goes further, and makes her a low-class Turk. On this point see Prof. Boyle’s note on p. 722 of his translation. On the camel story also Juvaynī and Kāshānī agree on a version slightly different from that of Rashīd al-Dīn (213).
37 Juvaynī, 136/636-7.
38 Juvaynī, 277/724-5; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 194; Kāshānī, 215.
39 Juvaynī, 139-42/639-40.
40 Juvaynī, 278/725; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, 194-5; Kāshānī, 215. The final quotation is from the Qur’an, vi, 116.
Chapters 5
Much has been written about the history of the Assassins in Syria. The most recent general accounts will be found in the relevant sections of Hodgson’s Assassins and in B. Lewis, ‘The Ismā‘īlites and the Assassins’, Chapter 4 of K. M. Setton (editor-in-chief), A history of the Crusades, i, ed. M. W. Baldwin, The first hundred years, Philadelphia 1955, 99-1
32, where full references to sources are given. Earlier literature is surveyed in B. Lewis, The sources for the history of the Syrian Assassins’, in Speculum, xxvii (1952), 475-89. Among older studies, two articles by Ch. Defrémery, ‘Nouvelles recherches sur les Ismaéliens ou Bathiniens de Syrie’, in JA, 5e série, iii (1854), 373-421 and v (1855), 5-76, still deserve attention. More recent work includes B. Lewis, ‘Saladin and the Assassins’, in BSOAS, xv (1953), 239–45; J. J. Saunders, Aspects of the Crusades, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1962, Chapter iii (The role of the Assassins), 22-7; and an unpublished thesis, Nasseh Ahmad Mirza, The Syrian Ismā‘īlis at the time of the Crusades, Ph.D. Durham, 1963.
Of late, Syrian Ismaili authors have begun to publish both texts and studies. So far the texts have all been of primarily doctrinal content, and offer little of direct historical interest. Some information may be gathered from a modern biographical dictionary, based in part on traditional materials, by Muafā Ghālib, A‘lam Ismā‘īliyya, Beirut 1964, and from a number of articles by ‘Ārif Tāmir in Arabic journals, including some early evidence: ‘Sinān Rāshid al-Dīn aw Shaykh al-jabal’, in Al-Adīb, May 1953, 43-5; ‘Al-Amīr Mazyad al-Hillī al-Asadī, Shā‘ir Sinān Shaykh al-jabal’, in Al-Adib, August 1953, 53-6; ‘Al-Shā‘ir al-Maghmūr: al-Amīr Mazyad al-illī al-Asadī, in Al-ikma, January 1954, 49-55; ‘A1-Firqa al-Ismā‘īliyya al-Bāiniyya al-Suriyya’, in Al-ikma, February 1954, 37-40; ‘Al-Fatraal-mansiyya min ta’rikh al-Isma‘iliyyin al-Suriyym’, in Al-ihna, July 1954, 10-13; ‘afaāt aghfalaha al-ta’rikh ‘an al-firqa al-Isma‘iliyya al-Surīyyn’, in Al-ikma, September 1954, 39-41; ‘Furū’ al-shajara al-Isma‘iliyya al-imamiyya’, in Al-Mashriq, (1957), 581-612 (including the text of a letter from Jalal al-Dīn asan, lord of Alamut, to the Ismailis in Syria – 601-3). Mr Tāmir has also published an article in English, ‘Bahrain b. Musa: the supreme Isma‘ili agent’, in Ismaili News (Uganda), 21 March 1954, and an Arabic historical novel, Sinān wa-alā al-Dīn, Beirut 1956, as well as a considerable number of texts.
The Assassins: A Redical Sect in Islam Page 18