|
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.
An anachronistic history of the Nizari Isma'ilis of Alamut. Read Farhad Daftary and Marshall G. S. Hodgson's studies instead.
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. 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. 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. How did they train, what percentage of their population were actual assassins.
How did the different groups of Isamilis react. What did they believe. How did their beliefs change. 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 do we know he was strongly attached and how did he, the son of an Ismaili leader come to have a devoutly Sunni mother. 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.
Call me crazy but I think that there might have been a bit more information. 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.
On the other hand, as it is written it didn't take up too much of my time to read. Yes, they used assassination as a political tool, but where are the details.
What was the reaction of the Sunni's. 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.
Details, details, I want relevant details. How about the little snippet that Jalal al-Din Hasan was `strongly attached to his devoutly Sunni mother'.
now I only have 79 books left on my 999 list(9 books in 9 categories in 2009).
his research is proven to match the quality of his writing. in this books, the author shows his love for Middle East and Islam culture. the assassins is one the best testament for bernard lewis. Lewis has written numerous "current events" books on middle east. writing specifically on a sect, Lewis dissectates the middle age Middle east with a precision rarely seens. the complexity of the region already shows after the birth of Islam and lewis manages to keep the reading simple and entertaining. this is one goes to the origin (sort of) of the problem. to read if intrested by the region or Islam.
You come across a book every once in a while that you know is a solid, scholarly account of a period in history. In fact they played a rather minor role in the overall picture. 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. In fact virtually everything you read is dead on, at least from what little you know of that time period. 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. 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. As such you don't question the author's intent or doubt that his reasoning is flawed. But what they did have was the ability to strike fear into everyone, no matter where they were or how powerful they were.
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. They were not a large land owning sect, they didn't have the political clout to push their weight around. 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. 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.
|
