Comparative Essay of Hodgson's The Order of the Assassins and Daftary's The Ismai'lis
After
the death of the Prophet, Muhammad, the religion of Islam split over whom his
successor will be and what type of leader he should be. The two major groups are the Sunnis and the
Shi’is, the latter of which contains a subgroup called the Isma’ilis. The history of the Isma’ilis is far from
being simple. In the beginning of Isma’ilism,
they were a small sect, but they would eventually rise to become a major player
in Islam during the Fatimid period. The
Isma’ilis would have an internal conflict over the succession of an imam and
would split into two groups. One
movement was the Musta’lian Isma’ilis following al-Musta’li, the other followed
Nizar. The group backing Nizar, would
become infamous. The Nizari Isma’ili
movement was on the extreme side. This
particular group became known as ‘the assassins’. Of course, every story has two sides, and the
Isma’ilis are no exception. It is
important to understand the perspective of both sides, before coming to a
conclusion about them. The book, The
Ismal’ilis: their history and doctrines, by Farhad Daftary, looks at the
Isma’ilis from a broad, outside- looking- in view, while the book, The Order
of Assassins; the struggle of the early Nizari Isma’ilis against the Islamic
world, by Marshall G. S. Hodgson, focuses on the assassin group and really
tries to look at the situation from their perspective when possible.
Before the Isma’ilis became known as
assassins, they had to begin somewhere.
As mentioned above, the Isma’ilis were part of the Shi’is. They believed that after Muhammad’s death the
succession went through ‘Ali, who married Muhammad’s daughter, Fatima. Then the current imam appoints his
successor. The Isma’ilis did not break
from the Shi’is until the year 765 when Abu ‘Abd Allah Ja’far b. Muhammad
al-Sadiq died.[1] The Isma’ilis separated from the Shi’is over
his succession. It is important to note
that there is uncertainty over early Isma’ilism, though more knowledge is being
gained in modern times.[2] Most of the sources we have agree that Ja’far
al-Sadiq named his son Isma’il as his successor. A problem occurred however, when Isma’il died
before Ja’far al-Sadiq did. This caused
a division among Shi’is who then split from one another, with various beliefs
of who to follow after that. Daftary’s
book identifies two groups of pro-Isma’il Shi’is. One group believed that Isma’il never died
and that he would come back as the Mahdi[3]
(the one who would come back at the end of the world). They backed up their belief by pointing out
that Ja’far al-Sadiq did not name anyone else after the death of Isma’il, and
as the “true imam” Ja’far al-Sadiq had to remain truthful,[4] so
they believed they had no reason to deny that Isma’il was still alive and going
to come back. This group is called the
“pure Isma’iliyya” by several heresiographers since they believe Isma’il is
both the imam and the Mahdi. The other
group believes that Isma’il did die, but Ja’far al-Sadiq named Muhammad b.
Isma’il the next imam when Isma’il died.[5] When Ja’far al-Sadiq died the majority of
Isma’il’s followers swing to support Muhammad b. Isma’il and claim him as the
rightful imam.[6] For this to happen, they claimed Isma’il was
imam and he received it when Ja’far al-Sadiq was still living. Then, Muhammad b. Isma’il succeeded him. Thus Isma’ilism began.
The Isma’ilis call their movement
“al-da’wa,” meaning literally, “the mission.”[7] The Isma’ilis reached their peak during the
Fatimid period. This “golden age” of
Isma’ilism began in 909 and lasted 185 years.[8] It is referred to as the “golden age” because
the literature, as well as ideas of the Isma’ilis peaked. Isma’ilism was also the state religion of
this empire that, at its greatest mark, included the Hijaz area (the cities of
Mecca and Medina), Syria, Palestine, Yaman, Egypt, North Africa, the coast of
Africa along the Red Sea, and Sicily.[9] In the end however, inner conflict coupled with
rivals such as the Saljuqs, would lead to the end of the Fatimid Caliphate.
In 1094 the death of al-Mustansir,
made a division in Isma’ilism.[10] One group was the Musta’lian Isma’ilis. They took al-Musta’li, the son of
al-Mustansir, as the next imam, followed by al-Mustansir’s grandson, al-Amir.[11] The second group is the Nizari Isma’ilis. Nizar had a powerful claim to succession in
Egypt, after al-Mustansir died. Unfortunately
for him, Musta’li was named successor.
So Nizar went to Alexandria, but was defeated, then jailed in Cairo.[12] However, all the events that transpired
showed that the Isma’ilis in Iran seemed to be more independent. There seemed to be a strong dislike for the
power of the military and other activities that happen in Egypt by Badr
al-Jamali. Hasan-i Sabbah, according to
Nizari tradition, starts a new era of growth for the Nizaris.[13] The Nizaris orchestrated their own
da’wa. Their rivals were the Saljuqs (who
were Sunni) and the Musta’lis in Egypt and surrounding areas. Hasan-i Sabbah began travelling in Saljuq areas,
and later in both Egypt and Syria, he won over a big population and they became
Nizaris.[14] One of the Nizaris early goals was to take
Alamut. Hasan believed Alamut was the
perfect stronghold to get and then launch a revolt.[15] In 1090, the Nizaris had possession of
Alamut, and further began their campaign.[16]
The Nizaris, though they have a vast
history, came to stand out in one particular area of expertise: the use of
assassination as a huge political method.[17] The fida’is (fid’ai is literally “devotee”)
are the Nizaris who were tasked to assassinate when called upon to do so.[18] More than likely, starting off, a fid’ai
could have been any Nizari. Nizaris were
not the only sect of Islam that used assassination. There are recordings that Muhammad actually
said, on certain circumstances, that an enemy could not live because their life
was not worthy to.[19] Working as a fid’ai seemed to be suicide;
typically they were tasked with assassinating men who had armed guards. However, being one of these assassins brought
pride to their families. For example,
when a mother heard that all the assassins had been killed, she was filled with
joy, because she believed her son was killed on this trip. However, she mourned when her son returned.[20] Also, the Nizaris believed that they were
purifying their souls when they were killed in action.[21] They became so vicious and skilled that
groups like the Sunnis were afraid of them.
The Nizaris scared other sects of Islam, because they wanted a whole
hearted conversion of people.[22] This was their policy. The Isma’ilis did not
assassinate common people for the most part.
They focused on the higher ranking individuals in the hierarchy of
faith. They believed that the common
people, who make up the majority of the population, just had ignorant
prejudice, and therefore impartial to their cause.[23] The Isma’ilis believed assassination to be
“just and humane.”[24] In general, surprise murder terrified
Muslims, as it does almost all people today.
Hodgson was faced with the task of
explaining Nizari assassins and also attempting to explain why they believed
what they did. It is easy to see the
side of anti-Nizari and to classify them as an insane group of people. He tried to explain from their perspective
what was happening and why it made sense in their minds. Hodgson focuses his book on the Nizaris and
particularly on the group of assassins that formed. Since it was published in 1955, he did not
have access to sources that Daftary did when constructing his work. More sources have been found over the
years. While Hodgson’s book focuses on
the Nizaris, Daftary’s book is comprehensive of all Isma’ili sects and is a
detailed history. It cites a variety of
primary sources and also the works of historians. It does include more detail, since it was
published in 1990. Both books do try to
show the lasting impacts the Isma’ilis had on history, and both explain well
the causes and effects of events in Isma’ili history. Hodgson and Daftary both make efforts to
examine the Isma’ili perspective and give them a voice. Making that task difficult is the fact that
most sources from this time are from anti-Isma’ili sources.
The Isma’ilis history was marked
with controversy and, as with other sects in Islam, it began from a dispute
over succession. The Isma’ilis further
divided over a different succession argument.
Despite the latter dispute, the Isma’ilis grew to make a lasting impact,
especially during the Fatimid period.
This is when Isma’ili literature and ideas began to really flourish, as
Isma’ilism was the official religion of the empire. After the collapse of the Fatimids, Isma’ilis
remained, although they were despised by many Islamic sects. Then, the Isma’ilis would have an internal
split, to which one group, the Nizaris, would become known as assassins. The Nizaris created a legacy of their
own. They had a specialty of being ‘on
cue’ assassins. They struck fear in the
hearts of their enemies for years to come.
Both Hodgson and Daftary covered the various angles of Isma’lism and
looked at the impact they had on both sides.
[1] Farhad
Daftary, The Isma’ilis: their history and
doctrines (Cambridge University Press, 1990), 90.
[2]
Daftary, The Isma’ilis, 92-93.
[3]
Daftary, The Isma’ilis, 95.
[4]
Daftary, The Isma’ilis, 95.
[5]
Daftary, The Isma’ilis, 96.
[6]
Daftary, The Isma’ilis, 96.
[7]
Daftary, The Isma’ilis, 93
[8]
Daftary, The Isma’ilis, 144.
[9]
Daftary, The Isma’ilis, 144.
[10] Daftary,
The Isma’ilis, 255.
[11]
Daftary, The Isma’ilis, 256.
[12]
Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Order of
Assassins; The struggle of the early Nizari Isma’ilis against the Islamic world(Mouton
& Company: University of Chicago, 1955), 63.
[13]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 64.
[14]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 69-70.
[15]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 48.
[16]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 73.
[17]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 82.
[18]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 82.
[19]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 82.
[20]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 83.
[21]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 83.
[22]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 84.
[23]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 84
[24]
Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 84.
No comments:
Post a Comment