According to both historians Bernard Lewis and Farhad Daftary, Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ and Niẓām al-Mulk became political rivals, but it was Niẓām al-Mulk who tricked Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ and disgraced him in the eyes of the sultan. Out of embarrassment and rage, he fled to Persia. All the while, Omar Khayyām continued his role as the one who was granted his stipend to pursue his scholarly and artistic endeavors.

 

Whichever story was true, the result was always the same: Niẓām al-Mulk was a vizier of the Sunnī-dominant Seljūq Empire, and Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ landed himself in the valley of Alamūt in northern Persia. Along his way, he was able to garner a following, and upon reaching Alamūt, he crossed Sipul, where it is said he proclaimed, “This is the boundary of my kingdom. From now on all the territory that I shall cross belongs to me.”

 

To take the castle of Alamūt, Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ sent dā’īs to convert people in the villages around the castle. After a while, Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ’s followers infiltrated the castle and worked on converting its inhabitants to the Ismā’īlī faith. Eventually, their leader himself went into the castle in disguise. The Ismā’īlīs gained a strong enough foothold to evict the ruler of the castle, and some sources claim he was given 3,000 dīnārs.

 

Alamūt was taken in 1090, and in 1092, the first assassination was performed. The target was the Seljūq vizier Niẓām al-Mulk. On Oct. 16, the fidā’ī Bu-Tahir Arrani, while disguised as a Ṣūfī mystic, stabbed him to death at the district of Nihāvand. According to the account of this event by Rashīd al-Dīn, a Persian historian, upon the death of the vizier Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ said, “The killing of this devil is the beginning of bliss.”

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

After the first assassination, word spread of the Assassins of Alamūt, and fear set into the hearts of Seljūq officials, many of whom fell victim to the daggers of the Nizārī Ismā’īlīs no matter how hard they attempted to resist them. Only a few survived attacks, one of which was Aḥmad ibn Niẓām al-Mulk, the son and successor of Niẓām al-Mulk, who led an attack against Alamūt in 1107/8 that was damaging to Assassin morale but overall failed.

 

Aḥmad ibn Niẓām al-Mulk’s brother, Fakhr al-Mulk, was not so lucky. He was slain in Nīshāpūr the year prior to his brother’s military campaign.

 

In 1108/9, ‘Ubayd Allah al-Khaṭīb, a qāḍī (judge) in Iṣfahān, was slain by an Assassin while in the mosque in Hamadān. The qāḍī took extra precautions to save himself from the daggers - he openly opposed the Nizārī Ismā’īlīs, and he knew it painted a target on his back. He wore chainmail under his clothes and even had a bodyguard, but the Assassin was able to get between them.

 

The reign of Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ was monolithically successful, having captured multiple castles, defended his territories from the attacks of the Seljūq and slew adversaries from the comfort of his own castle. However, his reign would not last, and in 1124 he fell ill and died. Having executed both of his sons for different reasons, he searched for a successor outside of his bloodline, and his choice landed on Kiyā Buzurg-Ummīd, the commandant of the castle of Lamasar.

 

Buzurg-Ummīd led a successful reign, and organized several assassinations including Tāj al-Mulūk Būrī, a known Ismā’īlī-slaughterer and Seljūq ruler as well as Mu’īn al-Dīn Kāshī, a Seljūq vizier who denied Ismā’īlīs rights given to prisoners of war by Muslim law. The Assassin leader’s rule was less eventful than his predecessor, and he died on Feb. 9, 1138, three days after to choosing his son, Muḥammad ibn Buzurg-Ummīd, as his successor.

 

Juvaynī vividly wrote upon the death of the second Assassin leader, “Buzurg-Ummīd remained seated on the throne of ignorance until [Feb. 9, 1138] when he was crushed under the heel of perdition, and hell was heated with the fuel of his carcass.”

 

The first and most notable assassination under Muḥammad was of al-Rashīd, the former caliph of Baghdad and the son of al-Mustarshid. On June 5 or 6 of 1138, Assassins disguised as men in his own service slew him in Iṣfahān. The death of a former caliph called for celebration in Alamūt, which lasted an entire week.

 

At this point, the leaders of Alamūt had deviated from the original doctrine laid down by Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ, however, that would soon change.

 

Muḥammad’s son, Ḥasan II, gained a following among the people in Alamūt because of his likeness to the first Assassin leader. Because of his ill opinions toward the works of Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ, Muḥammad did not like this, and sought to end it, and he even executed 250 of his own people and banished 250 more because of their allegiance to his son. These numbers were likely exaggerated by the Persian historians who recorded them.

 

Despite his denial, Muḥammad was succeeded by his son after his death in 1162. The now 35-year-old Ḥasan II brought theological change to the sect more than political gain through assassination. In fact, no assassinations were conducted under his rule, and he was murdered by his brother-in-law on Jan. 9, 1166 in the castle of Lamasar.

 

He was succeeded by his 19-year-old son, Muḥammad II. A handful of assassinations were carried out under his leadership, but they were of little significance. He died on Sept. 1, 1210, possibly by poison. The murderer was never found, and he was succeeded by his son Jalāl al-Dīn Ḥasan III.

 

It was under Jalāl al-Dīn when the Nizārī Ismā’īlī State almost became Sunnī. He actively reached out to Sunnī leaders to form allegiances, proving his own Sunnism on multiple occasions. He was also the first Arab ruler to extend allegiance to the amassing Mongolian threat in the east. This adherence was fragile, and it was later obstructed.

 

Instead of administering assassinations, of which he only ordered two, Jalāl al-Dīn led armies and built his kingdom. The sheer change in direction by this leader even led to the invitation of Sunnī scholars to the library of Alamūt, allowing them to sort through the works there. They were permitted to burn what they saw as heretical, including most of the writings of Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ.

 

Eventually, Jalāl al-Dīn died in November of 1221 from dysentery. It was suspected that one of his four wives poisoned him, and they were all put to death on the accusation. Additionally, the former leader’s closest relations, including his sister, were put to death by the vizier, who was now the interim ruler of the Assassins since ‘Alā al-Dīn Muḥammad III, the son and successor of Jalāl al-Dīn, was just nine years of age.

 

The accession of ‘Alā al-Dīn was in 1227, and he brought the heretics back to their roots by slowly reinstituting Nizārī Ismā’īlism into the minds of the people of Alamūt. Eventually, assassinations resumed, and they were made very clear. Orkhān, a Khorazmian officer who led raids against Ismā’īlīs in Quhistan, was murdered by three Assassins who shouted the name of ‘Alā al-Dīn in the streets.

 

Later in his life, ‘Alā al-Dīn became sick with melancholia, and it affected everything from his rule to his relationship with his son, Rukn al-Dīn Khurshāh. On Dec. 1, 1255, he was murdered while sick in bed by Ḥasan of Māzandarān, his closest companion. He was succeeded by his son, Rukn al-Dīn, who reigned for less than two years.

 

Rukn al-Dīn spent most of his rule trying to convince his fellow Nizārīs to surrender to the Mongolians. He convinced all the Assassin territories in Persia to surrender, but three did not comply: Girdkūh, Lamasar and Alamūt. The Mongolians saw Rukn al-Dīn as a valuable addition to their ranks; they wanted to spare expenses, making a Muslim leader calling for surrender something they preferred.

 

Once all the Nizārī castles and fortifications were either surrendered or destroyed, Rukn al-Dīn no longer served a use to the Mongolians. They killed his family, and on his way back to Persia, he was killed by unknown men on an unknown date sometime in 1256.

 

Lamasar fell to the Mongolians in 1270, marking the end of the Nizārī Ismā’īlī State in Persia. In 1275, Alamūt was briefly recaptured by the Ismā’īlīs, but not for long. In Syria, the Ismā’īlīs only a small amount of time after the fall of their Persian brothers, but were eventually dissolved by 1273. To hear their story, click here.