|
Hodgson's studies instead. S. An anachronistic history of the Nizari Isma'ilis of Alamut. Read Farhad Daftary and Marshall G.
For example I don't care that Virgo was in ascendancy and the sun was in Cancer when Hasan ala dhikrihi'l-salam-Hasan freed his followers from the burden of Holy law, I want to know why. On the other hand, as it is written it didn't take up too much of my time to read. How did they train, what percentage of their population were actual assassins. What was the reaction of the Sunni's. Perhaps if I had read something other then Russell T Davies & Benjamin Cooks book A Writer's Tale just prior to this I may have found it less dry and dare I say boring.
How about the little snippet that Jalal al-Din Hasan was `strongly attached to his devoutly Sunni mother'. How did their beliefs change. How do we know he was strongly attached and how did he, the son of an Ismaili leader come to have a devoutly Sunni mother. now I only have 79 books left on my 999 list(9 books in 9 categories in 2009). I mean on page 72 we are told about his speech telling his followers that they are the Chosen and no longer have to follow the Holy Law (1164) and on the top of page 75 we are told that he was stabbed in 1166. Really that's about the equivalent of Billy Graham telling Christians that Jesus is really the son of the Devil and by following the 10 Commandments you are going to burn in Hell.
I have always been intrigued by this group and what their history might be, but unfortunately I don't think that this book added anything significant to what I already knew, perhaps I was sleeping when I read most of it. Near the end he writes "More and more, their religion acquires the magical and emotional qualities, the redemptionist and millenarian hopes, associated with the cults of the dispossessed, the disprivilaged and the unstable. How did the different groups of Isamilis react. Yes, they used assassination as a political tool, but where are the details. Call me crazy but I think that there might have been a bit more information. Details, details, I want relevant details.
What did they believe. Ismaili theology had ceased to be, and did not again become, a serious alternative to the new orthodoxy that was dominating the intellectual life of the cities." If the author has enough information to make such a statement then he should have enough information to tell us what their theology was and how it evolved or perhaps devolved in some more detail then was provided in this book.
this is one goes to the origin (sort of) of the problem. his research is proven to match the quality of his writing. Lewis has written numerous "current events" books on middle east. the assassins is one the best testament for bernard lewis. to read if intrested by the region or Islam. writing specifically on a sect, Lewis dissectates the middle age Middle east with a precision rarely seens. in this books, the author shows his love for Middle East and Islam culture. the complexity of the region already shows after the birth of Islam and lewis manages to keep the reading simple and entertaining.
They all feared the Assassins and attempted in numerous ways to rid themselves of such a dangerous sect.Ultimately Lewis does a fantastic job in illustrating this wonderful time period for the history and stories that are so lush and full of life. Bernard Lewis does this in his account of a small religious sect in the Middle East called the Ismailis, or commonly known as the Assassins.Right from the beginning we are given a quick explanation on how the sect's converts and followers were duped into believing wholeheartedly that their leader, The Old Man Of The Mountain, was a prophet and that he could grant them a life in paradise if they did his bidding. But what they did have was the ability to strike fear into everyone, no matter where they were or how powerful they were. They were not a large land owning sect, they didn't have the political clout to push their weight around.
You come across a book every once in a while that you know is a solid, scholarly account of a period in history. Just as to kill someone became associated with this small religious sect that utilized this method, and thus how we today come to call assassinate or assassination, so to does Lewis's work reflect on the Ismailis. Whether you were the Sultan, the Caliph, the Vizier, a Western king, earl or baron, or perhaps even the Mongol emperor that invaded with such a huge amount of force that nobody could withstand, it didn't matter. As such you don't question the author's intent or doubt that his reasoning is flawed.
In fact they played a rather minor role in the overall picture. Lewis' work has staying power, being written in the sixties, and should be thought of as one of the leading sources of this time period and group. In fact virtually everything you read is dead on, at least from what little you know of that time period. Then, just as effortlessly, he moves on to give the background history that leads up to how they got to where they were and how they began to gain their power.This was, of course, the use of assassinating their political rivals and striking fear into those that would oppose them or dare to come against them.
Jewish groups in the Jewish revolts practiced it. There is simply not enough on the background of the movement. First of all they were not "The first Islamic terror group" as some have written. 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.
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 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. The Caliph Ali, Hassan and Hussain were assassinated. then this may be the book for you. Was it just random assassinations or rather just to silence opponents (Such as the threat against the Sunni scholar Fakr al-Din Razi). Why has Lewis not studied the strands of Islam, the origins of the Nizari and their religious and political development. 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.
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. Secondly they did not "Invent the art of assassination" The Greeks and Persians practiced it. 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. 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. 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.
|
