Assassins Paperback – November 23, 2002

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 is a teacher's book - sometimes pretty uneasy to read. Reminds me a couple of guys at university who "understood themselves"Don't get me wrong I am commenting the way it's written here. Otherwise it's a pretty good catalogue of facts.Buy it if you want to be documented. Dom't buy it if you wante to be documented AND have (little) fun reading

Puts the September 11 terrorist attacks in perspective. Somewhat dry account; does not repeat the lurid tales which have been spun about the Assassins. Needs to be combined with Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes" for a fuller understanding.

There is no doubt Mr. Lewis is an expert in Islamic studies. He does not has a patronizing tone towards Muslims or Islam, which makes this book a non-partial attempt at one of the most interesting aspects of Islamic history.This book starts off with the background of the era in which it is placed. Then it moves towards the minority sect within Islam called Shism (Shias or people who claim that Hazrat Ali, fourth Caliph of Islam, should have been the 1st caliph.) In later chapters he provides insight into the beginnings of this radical sect within Shia group called Ismailis, so named because they are the followers of Hazrat Ismail (RA), Imam (leader). The Assassins brings to the life their belief system, their strategies vis-a-vis Sunni Muslims and how such a small group of people were able to hold into their forts. The strategies they used were both radical and classic. And their most potent weapon was murder. No wonder the term was later adopted by the Crusaders, who brought the term to Europe.In the final chapter of the book, Mr. Lewis explains why today Ismailis are non-radical. He very clearly explains the reasons which forced them to become such an aggressive force and yet today they are the most educated and non-violent of all Muslim sects.Full marks to the author.

No wonder many hate Bernard Lewis in my homeland but still read his books. If we could write about the medieval history of Europe for instance with this clarity and skillfull scholarship but with storytelling mastership and spread it among people (and 'consultants') the same way, more Europeans would've left with no stomach to feel superior about their own civilisation again.Good scholarship and deep balanced research pursuing only the truth in this era of great changes in the mideast. My advice to those who're seeking to find the routes of terrorism in their Western homelands these days is to read more about European infiltration to the mideast in the medievals (Lewis is barely touching on the crusaders of this era so nothing is clear on their events and interactions with locals) and in the 19th and 20th century including (but not limited to) the Allenby's invasion of Jerusalem in WW1 that turned it later to an exclusive land for one group of its original inhabitants (the Jews) and their relatives in the diaspora.

Informative but not as interesting as other books by the same author

Absolutely love it, such a great read, goes into details, and very interesting. Highly recommend.

This is my third book from Bernard Lewis and I must say that I am privileged to read to read the book. The book is written by a master story teller who knows the nuances of history. In fact, while perusing through the book I always have the feeling of reading a novel written by a third person narrator who makes me feel that I was present during the actual happening of events. A very good indeed...

Very interesting read

While reading two books on Richard Lionheart, Frank McLynn's RICHARD AND JOHN and James Reston's WARRIORS OF GOD, I came across the story of Sinan, the head of a hashish cult called the Assassins, an organization capable of doing, in real life, what the godfather had done in film fiction with the horse's head. Both Richard and Saladin were so terrified of him that they did everything in their power to placate the old man. (One of many Sultans, upon awakening, found a dagger on his pillow; so warned, the Sultan awarded Sinan a yearly pension of 3,000 dinars.) Boys were accepted into the cult very young, and when the moment came for them to be used as killers, they were drugged and then admitted into a garden where they found, upon awaking, fountains, wonderful food and all the girls their young bodies could accommodate. They were told that this was Paradise, and that if they were lucky enough to be killed during their mission, this is what awaited them in recompense. So I ordered Bernard Lewis' book THE ASSASSINS. Lewis tells the story from the very beginning, with the founding of Islam, a story as dense as algebra and as convoluted as calculus. There are Imamates, Imams, viziers, Sultans, Caliphs, Caliphates, emirs, muftis, Shi'a, Sunni, Mongols, Ismailis, this sect and that sect, and murder galore. Here are some of the words I made note of concerning the interactions of these groups, words extracted from just 2 of the book's 134 pages: cunning, skin stuffed with straw, torture, flayed alive, beheaded, massacre, killing, conquest, death, assault, burned him. There are also some astonishing photos of the Assassins' mountain strongholds. Immensely complicated, extremely erudite, it is a 5-star effort, although stories of the assassination attempts should have been far more developed, because as it is, the book is often as dry as hay.

A good historical overview of a mysterious topic, I have knowledge of this historical micro-state/sect from more flamboyant sources (such as computer games) and also some existing knowledge of Islamic history, theology, including Ismailism, and I wanted more. It has given me the background I wanted, but in reality is very much a historical overview, focusing on people, events, battles and territorial disputes. It does situate the Assassins in the wider context, as best it can for a small book, however I was disappointed that there was very little theological or comparative religious studies included, so really I am non-the-wiser in terms of how Ismailism differs from mainstream Shi’ism and so on. The historical stuff is very well researched and referenced, which suggestions for further study, but the book generally lacks a critical or analytic element and does not seem that guided by the religious worldview that would provide context - more reading will be needed.