As I said, the first topic of the lecture deals with medieval use of assassins to create terror in non-Arab Muslim communities that dominated the Islamic world. A major ingredient in the doctrines that were adhered to for the promotion of terror was esoteric teaching or ta'lim. For an understanding of esoteric teaching, therefore, let us go to the early days of Islam and become acquainted with the history of the Isma'ili branch of the Shi'ite sect of Islam. Then, with the esoteric teachings of the Isma'ilis as a background, we shall examine the life of Hassan-i Sabbah who, in many ways, foreshadows 21st-century terrorists like Osma bin Laden. The parallels are so striking that one need not draw charts or present comparative tables to prove the point.
In order to see why the Isma'ilis chose to terrorize the Seljuq empire of their time consider the following chart, representing the development of the Shi'ite branch out of the main body of Islam and, ultimately, the Isma'ili branch out of the Shi'ite sect.
As the chart indicates, Allah sends al-Qur'an to the Muslim community of Mecca through the intermediacy of Prophet Muhammad. Right after the death of the Prophet, there is a heated debate as to who should succeed the Prophet. In a normal Arab setting, there would have been little need for such a debate. The succession question would have been settled through consensus. But the deciding body was not a hundred percent Arab. Since the takeover of Yemen by the Sassanians, Iranians had been involved in Arab affairs. Furthermore, by the time of the Prophet's unification of the Arab tribes, many Iranians had joined Islam. Their view of succession was different. They believed that the Prophet had special knowledge, esoteric knowledge that, in the future, could be accessed only through the bloodline of the Prophet. Iranian monarchs had ruled on this principle, known as the divine right of kings, for centuries. Their monarchs, they believed, had always had an open line to the wisdom of Ahura Mazda. The Muslim community, therefore, should, have an open line to the guidance of Allah, they preached.
Here is the question then. As Arabs, using consensus, we could have resolved the situation with little debate. As a mixed community, we have to listen to other arguments before we forge ahead with the consensus we have reached. Eventually this is how the situation was resolved. The larger body of Muslims, who are known as the Sunnis, decided to go with Abu Bakr, a companion of the Prophet, a pious man whom the Prophet had chosen to lead Friday prayers whenever he himself had been unable to lead. As a result, they bypassed Ali, cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, who would have been chosen had the bloodline argument been accepted.
After this initial choice all seems to have fallen into place. Two more caliphs were chosen before Ali was given a chance at leading the Muslim community after the Prophet. If Ali had stayed in power long enough to pave the way for the succession of his sons al-Hassan and al-Hussein to the caliphate, Islam would have remained whole, albeit its teachings would be different today. But Ali was assassinated and the followers of the sunna of the Prophet, the majority, took matters into their own hand, putting the caliphate on the course that Abu Bakr and Umar had prepared for it. The Shi'ites (followers) of Ali were left on their own to organize their affairs, mostly clandestinely, under the rule of the descendants of Ali. And that is what the Shi'ites did after the AD 661 split.
This is a brief history leading to the split that today we refer to as the Shi'ite/Sunnite dichotomy. We are, however, only about halfway in our history which seeks an understanding of the Isma'ilis, a branch of the Shi'ite sect. More than that, we want to trace the esoteric knowledge that the early Shi'ites believed could be accessed by the descendant of Saint Ali. Even more importantly, should there be an attempt to restore, as it were, the integrity of the line of succession to the House of Ali, i.e., restore the bloodline and access to esoteric knowledge, what form should that struggle take?
After the murder of Saint Ali, this is the situation. The Shi'ites led by Ali's son, al-Hussein, confront the Sunnites in a famous battle at Karbala (in present-day Iraq) and lost. On the Sunni side, the caliphate continued in the manner that it had been operating before Ali. The Shi'ites, too, codified their own rules and, mostly in hiding for fear of Sunnite reprisals, carried on their affairs. Imams or saints followed each other, each adding his wisdom to the collective knowledge initiated by Allah through the Qur'an and the Prophet. Little happens that would jeopardize the unity of the small community until the 6th Imam, Ja'far al-Sadiq, chooses his son Isma'il to succeed him. When Isma'il passes away prematurely, he appoints his other son, Musa al Kazam. While the main body of the Shi'ites accept Musa Al-Kazam, a minority chooses to remain loyal to Isma'il's son, forming the Isma'ili branch of Shi'ite Islam. Known as the seveners, today we find them in Yemen, Syria, Iran, India, Central Asia, and Pakistan. They follow the dictates of Aqa Khan, the 49th Imam in Isma'ili line of succession.
The fortune of the Isma'ilis was changed by the rise of the Fatimid dynasty (AD 909-1171) in Egypt, a dynasty that attributed its legitimacy to rule through Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet and the wife of Saint Ali. After building their capital city of Cairo in 969, the Fatimids began a program of expanding the Isma'ili teachings (ta'lim) far and wide, especially into Syria, Persia, and what is today Central Asia. They claimed that the esoteric knowledge known through Al-Kazam, the saints preceding him, Ali, and the Prophet now resides within the house of Isma'il. In addition, they made no secret that they intended to expand their teachings at the expense of the Sunni Arabs and Turks to restore to the House of Ali what had been its legitimate right. They intended to restore to the Islamic community its right to be ruled by rulers who have access to divine knowledge.
One young man who heard the call of the Isma'ilis of Egypt was Hassan-i Sabbah, a native of the city of Ray, a town in the south of present-day Tehran. To complete his knowledge, Hassan traveled to Egypt in 1086 and returned to Iran with definite ideas regarding the promotion of the faith at the expense of the Seljuq Turks. The Seljuq Turks, it should be added, dominated not only Iran of the time but the caliphate in Baghdad as well. Here is Hassan-i Sabbah's main problem: How can a small group of dedicated people affect the world situation so that the teachings of Ali and his descendants would receive the attention they deserved? In addition, how can this same task be accomplished so that infidel Turks would have no choice but to leave the Islamic lands, so that the integrity of Islamic lands could be restored? The task was daunting, but it could be accomplished.
In pursuit of his plan, Hassan-i Sabbah used the succession of Nizar as a reason to break away from Cairo. He then formalized Isma'ili esoteric teachings into a hierarchy of knowledge at the apex of which were Allah and the Prophet, the middle was occupied by the saints, and the lower ranks by Hujjats followed by da'is. Only the latter would be used for the dissemination of knowledge at the community level. Recruits were directed to learn more from higher level da'is and hujjats. It is reported that he also created a "paradise" of sorts in which women, boys, food, and hashish were at the disposal of all those who succeeded in making the grade. Finally, for his headquarters, he chose a place as far from the reach of the Seljuq Sultan as possible, a fortress from which he could rule his shadowy empire but from which he could not be easily extracted.
The Alamut fortification in northwestern Iran has been well-known for the sheer precipices that surround it, as well as for the supply of water and grain that could sustain large numbers of people for a considerable period of time. Hassan-i Sabbah infiltrated the fortress and, within a short time, displaced its keeper. As the lord of Alamut then, he set about establishing his administration, military, training camps, and "paradise". Within a short time after Hassan's appearance in Alamut, it was not unusual to meet a person in the city of Isfahan, for example, a person who would fascinate you with the extent of his knowledge about very ordinary things. The magical properties of the number 7 (recall the Isma'ilis are also known as the seveners) usually began the conversation.
What the individual did not know was that he was being recruited by an Isma'ili da'i who would refer him to higher da'is to further his knowledge. The knowledge he would learn, now we know, consisted among other things of the caliph's infringement on the rights of the descendants of the Prophet, the havoc unleashed by Seljuq Turks in Islamic lands, and the "paradise" that awaits the truly faithful. A paradise that once the individual sets foot in it, he would not want to leave. Indeed, if the individual happened to be the right recruit, he would end up in that hashish-laden paradise, he would be served by beautiful women and boys in such luxury that he could not imagine. Unfortunately, before long that wonderful world was taken away. To return to paradise, he would be told, requires the performance of a task, a task that assures the Hujjat of the recruit's unflinching loyalty. And that task was the murder of a prominent member of the Seljuq administration. The murder of Nisam al-Mulk, the powerful wazir of the realm, is a telling example of the deeds of the recruits of Hassan-i Sabbah.
The English word "assassin" comes from the word "hashshashin" or consumers of hashish. The task that the recruit was to perform was to assassinate a named prominent dignitary of the Seljuq empire, remain with the murdered figure and announce his dastardly deed. Obviously, the people converging from various parts tore the assassin to pieces, an act that, for the assassin, was tantamount to return to paradise without question. After all, the assassin did not want to disappoint either himself, his lord at Alamut, or his mother who knew his son was embarking on a dangerous course to further a worthy cause. This attitude still exists in the Middle East today.
Hassan-i Sabbah was not the type of person who could be dismissed as unhinged, bloodthirsty, or in pursuit of power. Rather, he was a pious and just (he executed his two sons for transgression) person. His activities show that he was cruel, calculating, decisive, as well as extremely devoted to the Isma'ili cause. More than all, he was staunchly anti-Turkish.
continued...
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri/Afgha.../AfghanLec.html
There is much more at this link on Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Wahhabism. There are a number of graphics as well.