Customer Reviews

The Assassins

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

It's probably a fair guess that sales of Bernard Lewis's "The Assassins" were a lot slower before 9/11 than they are today. Many who purchased this book over the past year probably did so hoping that it would help provide some insight into Osama bin Laden and the terrorist network he heads. This book doesn't really do that, although that's no reflection on what Lewis has actually accomplished here. He wrote "The Assassins" more than a third of a century ago, and there are very significant differences between the Nizari Ismaili Order and the hate-filled fanatics of Al-Qaeda. But although this book won't help you understand what makes Osama bin Laden and his acolytes tick, it will introduce you to an important and little-known chunk of medieval Islamic history in which a lot of intriguing historical personalities play starring or supporting roles. This should be more than reward enough.

The group we call the Assassins are more accurately known as the Nizari Ismailis, an offshoot sect of Shi'i Islam. Their sect still survives today in the followers of the Aga Khan, whose communities from India to southern California reflect a progressive and humane face of Islam. From the late eleventh to thirteenth centuries, however, the Nizaris' struggle for survival in the midst of their more numerous and militarily powerful Sunni enemies led them to develop a form of defensive terrorism that proved remarkably effective in ensuring their security for almost two hundred years. In the end, however, the sect's lurid reputation proved its undoing -- for the Mongol khans ultimately concluded that their own safety could only be secured by the Assassins' extermination.

There are some similarities between the Assassins' modus operandi and that of today's Al-Qaeda terrorists. In each case, terrorists assigned to carry out missions for the group did not concern themselves with escape and expected to die whether their mission succeeded or not - a fact that added greatly to the apprehension of their enemies and their own mystique. Each group treated acts of terrorist violence as having a sacramental component - the Assassins always killed their victims up close and personal, choosing to use knives rather than poison or arrows, much as Mohammed Atta and his confederates observed certain rituals of personal hygiene and dress before carrying out their terrorist acts. The young men selected to carry out the actual terrorist operations in each case believed that their sacrifice for the sake of the cause would open the gates of paradise. And each group answered to the commands of s single leader, who styled himself as both a religious teacher and a political and military strategist.

But there the similarities end. Indeed, after reading Lewis's account, the most striking thing about the medieval Assassins is how much more civilized they seem to have been than the terrorists of Al-Qaeda. Their use of political assassination as a weapon was both highly focused and thoroughly pragmatic. Because they lacked the military strength to defeat their powerful enemies (primarily the Great Seljuks) in open combat, it made sense instead to strike at their opponents' command structure. Mass slaughter of faraway civilians for its own sake would have been incomprehensible to them. The Nizaris could plausibly have viewed their use of political assassination as both just and humane. They had legitimate grievances, for their community frequently suffered pogroms at the hands of their Sunni enemies that echoed the atrocities inflicted on the Jews of western Europe during this same period. By striking directly at the political, religious or military figures who had attacked their own communities, the Assassins could punish a current enemy, deter Sunni political and religious leaders from future attacks, and win the security they sought without the necessity of killing masses of their enemy's rank-and-file soldiery or risking the lives of more than a handful of their own members.

As Lewis points out, the Assassins were also masters of psychological warfare. They sometimes planted "sleeper" agents in the households of prospective enemies just in the event they might ultimately be needed. These agents did not always have to actually strike in order to achieve deterrence - a knife or a note left by an enemy's bedside while he was sleeping served to emphasize his vulnerability and was often sufficient to achieve the Assassins' political ends. (Sometimes, in fact, the Assassins did not even need to plant sleeper agents to accomplish their objectives - they might simply bribe an otherwise loyal member of their enemy's household to leave the note or the knife, thereby accomplishing the same effect without the need of even committing one of their own personnel.)

Lewis tackles and persuasively debunks most of the popular legends about the Assassins, such as the claim that their Grand Master secured the fanatical loyalty of his young followers by drugging them with narcotics and then conveying them for short periods to an artificial "paradise" of his own creation that was staffed by sensuous and accommodating young women. Lewis instead finds that a more straightforward (and plausible) explanation for the willingness of the Assassins' fida'is to offer themselves up for suicidal missions: religious passion and commitment to the Nizari community.

Lewis's short (140 pages) and elegant account will thus introduce you to an intriguing period of medieval Islamic history, one populated by a collection of memorable figures - the brilliant and ascetic Assassin leader Hassan i-Sabah, the real founder of the Order; the "Old Man of the Mountain," Sinan, who commanded the Order's Syrian branch during the most critical years of the Crusades; Saladin, who was at different times both a target and an ally of the Assassins; Hulegu, the grandson of Genghis Khan, who finally succeeded where the Seljuks had failed, rooting out the Order from its mountaintop fortresses and then ordering mass exterminations of its communicants; and last but not least, Marco Polo, to whose vivid tales can be ascribed much of the lingering fascination that continues to surround the Assassins.

This well-written book is obviously the work of an erudite writer. Lewis provides a thorough examination of what became known to the Europeans as the Assassins. From explaining likely explanations of where the word "Assassin" came from to describing the shadowy ruler of the group, known as "The Old Man of the Mountain," Lewis keeps the reader interested by making insightful comments and offerring thoughtful analysis. Lewis writes about the origins of the Assassin movement, the affects of the Assassins on European Crusaders, Sunni rulers and others. He explains probably causes for their existence with a thorough examination of primary source material. The Assassins are a fascinating study for not only those interested in the history of Islam or the Near East, but is also perfect for those who are interested in fundamentalism, comparative religion, radicalism or someone who wants to learn more about different peoples in a different time period (sometimes the similarities between the Assassin movement and modern fundamentalist and/or radical religious movements are striking). Another fascinating aspect of this book is its sociological explanations of why the Assassins lived primarily in the mountains compared to the Sunni who lived in the fertile river vallies. I especially recommend this book to professors of Religion/History classes who are looking for a very well-written book that provides valuable information while keeping the student interested.

This new edition has come out in the wake of the Sept 11 bombings and and upsurge in interest in Bernard Lewis's works. Those expecting a "glossy," ripped-from-the-headlines history might be put off by this book... it is a slightly updated reprinting of his classic history written a half-century ago. While it may not be a popular coffee table book, it is a throrough, highly informed work on the group that gave its name to political murder. To be honest, I got much more out of it the second time I read through it... some of the names, medieval politics, and Islamic debates left me feeling lost. The second time through, more things fell into place and I appreciated the details a great deal more. Also, I greatly appreciated his incredible knowlege of the subject and the region as a whole, as well as his keen insights into Islamic thinking. Clearly, Lewis is one of the most important Middle East scholars in a long time. Those looking for a scholarly, de-mystifying, and on its own terms readable work on the Assassins will like this book. If you're simply curious about this mysterious group, you may get more out of this volume if you first read one of Lewis's broader introductions to Islam... click on the authors name and several good choices will show up.

As a previous reviewer pointed out, post 9/11 the sales of this book have probably gone through the roof not least because Lewis has been (not so subltely) making comparisons between the Assassins and Al-Qaeda but also because every Al-Qaeda opponent on the planet has been jumping on the bandwagon.

Sadly, this book aside from the obvious that it was first published years before the events of 9/11 is a missed opportunity to study a little known Islamic group and instead, relies upon shock and scandal and instead of reading like a scholarly study of a subject reads more like something you would find in a tabloid.

The book begins with some history of the word Assassin and how it came into the English language then onto some early books that have been published on the subject in the West. The book then moves onto some brief studies of the subject by British scholars in India and the briefest of analysis of the current descendants of the Assassins who reside in that country. The book then covers nothing more than the sensationalist stories of "The old man of the mountains" Who dispatched deadly assassins to murder political opponents and scholars alike. Whose movement struck fear into its enemies and was finally defeated by a similarly ruthless movement, the Mongols of Genghis and Hulagu Khans.

The book just fails miserably in studying just who exactly the Assassins were. There is simply not enough on the background of the movement. The Assassins where the spiritual descendants of the Egyptian Fatimid (who later better known as the Ismaili) movement who followed and esoteric version of Islam which did indeed produce some great scholars in medicine and science. They were part of a wider movement in Islam (Such as the Ikhwan as-Safa) who while small in number, had a wide influence on Islam both Shia and Sunni from all aspects from science to Sufism.

The Nizari Ismaili, as the Assassins were known religiously were followers of a strand of Islam Sunnis refer to as a 'ghulat' or 'extremist' sect. This should not be seen in the context of violently extreme but rather extreme in their distance from the beliefs of Sunni Islam (Much in the same way as Zaidi Shia are referred to by Sunnis as 'moderate Shia') Why has Lewis not examined this aspect? Why has Lewis not studied the strands of Islam, the origins of the Nizari and their religious and political development? When the Nizari strongholds were finally breached by the Mongols the Shia scholar Nasruddin Tusi remarked at the vast libraries found there (It is also mentioned that many of their books were subsequently burned) Lewis rather treats us to pictures of Nizari mountain castles and stories of mass drunken orgies in defiance of Islam.

Why was there no examination of Nizari influence on other Shia groups? The Alevis of Turkey share almost the exact same beliefs as the Nizaris, ethnically they are from the same geographical area, history notes that the Nizaris made converts amongst the Turkomans and that Turkoman tribes were brought in bondage and then freed in Anatolia by Timur Khan. Was this too sensitive a subject to examine for a man who propagates Turkey as the beacon of democracy in the Middle East?

Lewis may even look to ibn Al-Athir (all be it briefly) for historical information on the Nizaris but keep in mind, he was a Sunni civil servant and had no love for the Nizaris and also keep in mind that his history book ran into volumes. Just how much of it do you think was taken up by a group that for Sunnis formed but a blip in history?

And lets examine the Nizari practice of assassination. First of all they were not "The first Islamic terror group" as some have written. Secondly they did not "Invent the art of assassination" The Greeks and Persians practiced it. Jewish groups in the Jewish revolts practiced it. The Caliph Ali, Hassan and Hussain were assassinated. Was this the be all and end all of their beliefs or rather was this the reaction of a minority group against a large opponent (both Abbasid and Crusader) who would easily and happily crush them given the chance? Was it just random assassinations or rather just to silence opponents (Such as the threat against the Sunni scholar Fakr al-Din Razi)? This is in sharp contrast to Al-Qaidi whose methods are to "Liberate the Muslim world" etc....

An entirely missed opportunity with far more faults that could be brought out but frankly too numerous to mention.

Read the books of Schimmel, Nasr, Corbin and Chodkiewicz. All of whom have examined the beliefs and practices of the Ismaili Muslims. If you want a bit of shock, horror, first terrorists in......., lets get these wackos..... then this may be the book for you.

The Assassins are part of the legend of the Crusades. The legend of their intoxicants, and the pleasures that initiates were allowed to sample before being sent on missions, are almost part of our historical lore, and of course the sect has lent its name to a word in the English language. This scholarly account by historian Bernard Lewis is detailed, and relentless at least in terms of sentimentality, brushing away legends and folklore and sticking to what's known of this splinter group of Islam and their culture, activities, motives, and fate.

It turns out that, as far as anyone knows, the Assassins are merely a splinter of the group called Ismailis (which still exists in Muslim countries, as a partially suppressed heresy). They existed for about three centuries, between the mid 11th century and the late 14th, in what is now northern Iran, and southern Syria. They never controlled a major city, and as a political entity, they appear to have survived largely through personal intimidation. While they were only so-so when it came to defeating armies, they were very effective at eliminating their leadership. In that era in which personal leadership, through monarchs and their surrogates, was the order of business for most governments in the area, this was particularly effective.

I enjoyed this book a great deal. If I do have a complaint, it's that the sum of knowledge about the Assassins, at least when Lewis wrote this, was rather thin, and so of course you don't get that much on them. The book itself runs to just about 150 pages in length, with an appendix which is another 50 pages tacked onto the end. The paucity of information isn't Lewis's fault, though, it's due to the secretiveness of the sect itself. Aside from that, the book is very well-done, interesting, and informative.

Bernard Lewis's The Assassins is a supremely academic introduction to one of the most well-known and most feared sects within historical Islam.

The work, originally written in 1967, begins with a detailed explanation of the historical roots of the Assassins, a Nizari Ismaili sect within Shi'a Islam that used targeted killings in the Middle Ages to achieve political, military, and religious goals. Lewis uses a wealth of historical sources to untangle the myths of the Assassins and trace the group's history throughout Medieval Islam. While many people have a general knowledge of or interest in the Assassins, Lewis's book provides in-depth information about the inner workings of this secretive sect.

While the title and subject of this book may appeal to the general reader, the book is extremely scholarly. This is both its greatest strength and greatest weakness. Lewis's use of primary source material, much of it previously undiscovered or unused, lends an extraordinary authoritativeness to the book. Lewis is able to fluidly weave this historical source material throughout the book, making it invaluable for historians and regional specialists. However, the book's extensive use of historical sources and quotes limits its accessibility to the general reader. As someone with an academic background in the Middle East and Islam, I still occasionally found myself overwhelmed by the density and scholarliness of Lewis's writing.

The book is a must-read for Middle East/Islamic specialists and historians. It is a superb example of succinct, historical, scholarly writing. However, general readers looking for insights into modern day Islamic terrorism and fanaticism will likely find themselves disappointed and overwhelmed by The Assassins.

Bernard Lewis remains one of the most respected Middle Eastern historians and is a name more Americans should be familiar with. "The Assassins" was originally published in 1967. This edition has been updated slightly but most of the text is unchanged. The work represents some of the best scholarly efforts of Professor Lewis, especially his work with original historical sources. Some readers may be disappointed with this book however, in that they may be looking for conncections with modern Islamic terrorism. Those connections are elusive. This is a history of sectarian divisions within Islam, particulary certain Ismaili sects of Shi'i Islam. Foremost among those divisions was a sect known generally as the Assassins (do not look for a direct connection between this fascinating religious sect and modern events...there is none). The Assassins began with the sinister Hasn i-Sabbah, and practiced religious and political murder often with the use of certain drugs (hashish for one which may have produced the Persian reference to this group). Oddly enough, most of the targets of the various orders of the Assassins were Sunni Muslims. Christians, such as the Crusaders, were only rarely singled out for their particular arts. As Lewis tells us the Ismailis were generally radical and the Assassins perphaps the most radical sect in Islam. This is a very readible volume, at a very affordable price. Although a scholarly work "The Assassins" is easily accessable to the general reader with an interest in the Middle East. As an undergraduate in college, this writer nearly wore out the single volume in the university library and is very happy to have a new edition in the bookshelf.

This book casts light on the mystery of the radical Islamic sect of the Assassins. Bernard Lewis dispels many of myths that surround this group of radical, fundamentalists that gave birth to the term for political murder. Of the myths he convincingly dispels is the one that lingers surrounding their name, that these fanatics did not go out in a drugged stupor to kill their victims. What is most interesting is that Lewis makes good use of the few Assassins chronicles that survive, so that we can see some of the inside workings of the sect, rather than rely on just Sunni or Crusader chronicles, which by their nature can be slanted. A must for any reader interested in the period of the Crusades...and also for college history professors.

I have the 2003 Folio Society edition which has an interesting Preface. In it Lewis corrects various contentions that the Assassin sect were the first 'terrorists' - they were not. Nevertheless he notes the similarities between them and the modern terrorists - the Syrian/Iranian connection, the calculated use of terror and the willingness of the assassin himself to die in carrying out his task. There are indeed some distinct differences with the past. The followers of the Old Man only struck at the rich and powerful - never the common man - and they invariably used a dagger. Lewis concludes by pointing out the prime lesson to be learnt from this medieval sect (a lesson that modern terrorists should well note) "is their final and total failure."
Lewis explains in clear and lucid language how the Assassins in one respect were without precedent - "in their planned, systematic and long-term use of terror as a political weapon." This they achieved through cool planning and religious zeal. He demonstrates they were not murderers for hire. The book is a valuable source in efforts to understand some of the actions of this region even today where at times it seems there may be vestiges of the past fueling discontent.

Geoffrey Lambert - author of "The Morozov Inheritance"

The author is a renowned and well versed scholar on Islamic history and culture, and this is one of the first authoritative books on the Hashishiyyin, Having been written on 1967. Not only an history of the Nizari Ismaelites, but also an history of the history of them! The early modern views and the Sunni sources are also explained and put into context. Obviously they were biased, but valuable nonetheless.

The sheer amount of information that is given in such a small book is impressive, but I believe it could be a little better organized; like another reviewer said, in several important subjects its missing the details.

Although there are now books with much more information on the assassins, this is a very good, easy to read, and inexpensive way to begin your study on this Islamic faction, radical on their interpretation of Islam.