Before the library was destroyed, the Persian historian Juvaynī was granted permission to sort through it. Juvaynī fought alongside Hülegü during the siege of Alamūt. As an individual who openly despised the Assassins, he took great pleasure in choosing what to burn and what to keep. He burnt the only proof of doctrines and chronicles kept by the sect, but it is believed that he kept the biography of Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ, as he often quoted it in his writing.

 

Many works from the library were written by Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ. His influence on the Ismā’īlī sect was vast, and his writings influenced future Assassin leaders, but not all of his works lasted to the time of the Mongolian invasion. It was Jalāl al-Dīn Ḥasan III, the sixth leader of Alamūt, who cast most of the works of Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ into a burning pile.

 

Because of this shortage of primary sources, the Assassins, a sect already committed to secrecy, became even more elusive than before, making their story vulnerable to misconception.

 

The largest of these misconceptions lies within their name. The Arabic word for “assassin,” depending on the dialect, is ḥasīsīn or hashīshīn (ḥashīshiyya in Syria), and it shares the same root with the Arabic word for cannabis extract, or ḥashīsh. According to legend, and several lesser-informed sources, the Assassins would use cannabis extract to drug potential recruits and bring them to a lush garden with beautiful women.

 

It was “paradise,” or so Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ supposedly called it.

 

After being exposed to such grandeur, the new recruits would do anything Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ wanted them to do, including assassinating a Sunnī, just so they could see “paradise” once more. Other, less reliable sources claim Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ’s followers would leap from the ramparts of Alamūt upon his command just to show their loyalty, and by doing so, he would grant them life in paradise.

 

Furthermore, there are even sources that claim that ḥashīsh was ingested by fidā’ī (or fedayeen, a.k.a. the devotees who sacrificed their life; assassins) before they killed their target. This theory has been used to explain their willingness to take a life and to sacrifice their own in the process, since oftentimes the fidā’ī himself would be killed or tortured.

 

While these concepts are intriguing, they are very unlikely. First of all, Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ, despite having plotted many murders, was a very devout Muslim. He was so devout that, according to some Persian historians, he had his son, Muḥammad, executed for drinking wine. When this fact comes into play, it seems less likely that he would have allowed ḥashīsh to be used among his fidā’ī.

 

Secondly, the use of the word “hashīshīn,” loosely translated to “cannabis-eater,” was likely synonymous to “outcast” or “pariah.” The Assassins were Nizārī Ismā’īlīs, which was a sect that branched from Shī’a. Sunnīs and Shī’a are the major sects of Islam, and they have been in disagreement and even physical conflict since the prophet Muḥammad died in 632 A.D.

 

Shī’a has always been the minority, and as a sect of Shī’a, the Ismā’īlī were even more of a minority (and as a sect of Ismā’īlī, the Nizārī Ismā’īlī were even more of a minority). Because of this, and because of their oftentimes extremist views, they were seen as heretics, and they oftentimes suffered the consequences. The Ismā’īlī were slaughtered by the numbers by Sunnī rulers, especially during the time of the Assassins.

 

It is most likely because of the image that the Sunnī created for them - the image of the outcast and heretic - that they garnered the name “hashīshīn,” not because they used cannabis. The term obviously stuck, and if it didn’t, we would not have the word “assassin.”

 

In fact, it has also been suggested that during the “lawless” reign of Ḥasan II, when “brother married sister” and Sharī’a was revoked, the practice of smoking or ingesting ḥashīsh did not seem so unusual to outside observers.

 

Outside of their name, other misleading claims exist in the many articles that appear on a Google search, among them being the title of “Old Man on the Mountain.” This title is commonly used in reference to Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ, but the title really came around much after his time. In fact, it wasn’t even in the same area that this title was used.

 

In 1164, Ḥasan II was the current and undoubtedly most controversial ruler of Alamūt. He sent his contemporary, Sinān ibn Salmān ibn Muḥammad to Syria as a dā’ī (missionary). Sometime in the following years, Sinān ibn Salmān became the Assassin leader in Syria and gained the title of Old Man on the Mountain because of his “mystical” image. There are Ismā’īlī stories of him using super powers, and some believed him to be the rightful imām, or successor of Islam.

 

Obviously, these Ismā’īlī sources were either propaganda or they were just poorly communicated to whoever wrote them down. Nevertheless, Sinān ibn Salmān was deserving of his title.

 

These are the two greatest myths surrounding the Assassins, but many more exist, and they will be answered within the next three articles contained within this study. For the next article click here.