When someone does his job, a good job, the job you’d expect him to do because that was the agreement you both had, OR AND, his sense of integrity allows, that is the LEAST he will do, plus that is what you would ideally want to see; when he does that job does he deserve a bonus? Does he deserve extra reward for fulfilling his end of the deal?

Other Considerations

His brothers don’t fulfill their ends of their deals, or have little integrity. Their standards are lower than his, so their contract partners are often disappointed. Does this give you perspective, yes, but does it also cause you to place a premium on his integrity? So do you then reward him so he would feel appreciated and continue doing well.

There’s also the probability that your sisters expect too much or too little from him in return for what they offer him. What dynamic does that present? It depends on how steady he is; would he be swayed to overcompensate when they want too much, or would be encouraged to slack off when they accept little.

Is there an ideal situation in all of this? What are his responsibilities to you, and yours to him? For those of you following me so far, you’d realise this isn’t the best comparison to the status quo, but allow me to extrapolate, and thus elaborate.

He makes you an offer, outlining the conditions, and you accept. If based on certain variables there is a problem with his initial offer, you make your problems clear, and he would with all haste rectify the problem. Some of your sisters wouldn’t have seen the problem but he would have seen it himself and rectified it; again, some of your sisters would’ve been more demanding, impatient, and scathing of the oversight or mistake on his part, while some of his brothers would simply refuse to fix it.

The ideal, is a balance between patience and integrity on one hand, and scrutiny/cynicism and professionalism/perfectionism on the other.

The good thing about his forum, and exposure to wider cultures than my own, is to see that there is little difference among peoples across the world, mediocrity in all things seems to be standard. People accept mediocrity from others, and even worse, mediocrity from themselves. Congratulations to the people who ‘police’ themselves.

——————————-

The Secret Order of the Assassins is an extraordinarily eye catching title for Marshall G. S. Hodgson’s book on the Nizari Ismaili branch of Shia Islam. This title serves to lure the reader beneath its cover as the book deals more with its subtitle, The Struggle of Early Nizari Ismailis Against the Islamic World. Through invoking the mythical cult of the Assassins on the cover, Hodgson seeks to entice the reader inside in order to demystify this little understood group. In the book, Hodgson largely succeeds in unwrapping the layers of myth around the assassins as he explores in depth the Nizari Ismailis who spawned these killers.

On the first page, Hodgson introduces the reader to the common conception of the assassins through a definition from the 1949 edition of the American College Dictionary; “Mohammedan fanatics… whose chief object was to assassinate Crusaders.” (Hodgson, pg 1). Hodgson then dismisses this as “the romance of legend” (pg 1). He then states that the primary concern of the book is the “fate of an aspiring minority group, whose religious and social orientation had been rejected by the bulk of Islamic society.” (pg 1). A group that eventually had to resort and then specialize in political assassination in order to defend themselves against a hostile Islam.

In the introduction, Hodgson outlines the period that gave rise to the Ismailis. The Fatimid Empire’s protection allowed the arts to flourish and “not least… speculative thought.” (pg 15). Under the Fatimids, the Ismailis developed their complex theology and Hodgson thoroughly examines it, but his explanation may leave behind readers who are unfamiliar with Islamic theology. Hodgson’s constant examination of esoteric Ismaili theology is a problem that will continue to plague the general reader throughout the book.

At the end of the introduction, Hodgson looks at the centuries of bad press the Ismailis and particularly the Nizaris received. The capture of the Nizari capital of Alamut by the Mongols in 1256 and its later destruction, means that there is virtually no records left by the Nizaris themselves. The aggressive Nizari theology, deemed inimical to Islam, and the practice of assassination made sure that “their enemies held the [written] field” (pg 25) after the Nizari destruction. Contemporary and later Islamic writers with few exceptions reviled the Nizaris, writing polemical works filled with fantastic and usually false tales of grisly murders. Even later European writers followed in this tradition of seeing the Nizaris as a fanatical and degenerate cult. Hodgson seeks to cut through all the negative histories of the Nizaris in order to give an objective account of the Nizari sect.

The first section of the book deals with Hodgson’s chronicle of the rise of the Nizari sect and their struggle against the Seljuk Turks. In the later half of the Eleventh century, the Fatimid Empire was in crisis, with Mustansir, the fifth Caliph of Cairo losing his capital amidst the unrest. With the help of a military commander named Badr al-Jamali, Mustansir recaptures Cairo in 1074, but at the price of much of his authority. Badr has Mustansir’s younger son, Musta’li (also Badr’s son-in-law) named as heir to the Fatimid Caliphate, displacing the eldest son, Nizar. The death of Mustansir and the following succession crisis would lead to the schism of the Nizaris (supporters of Nizar) from the Fatimid Empire.

In the prelude to the schism, Hodgson looks at Hasan-I Sabbah, “the man who gets all the credit” (pg 41) for founding the Nizari sect around the city of Alamut. Hodgson constructs a narrative of Hasan’s life based on a fairly full biography written by a later Persian historian, Rashid ad-Din. Hodgson also gleans information on Hasan from preserved summaries of Hasan’s writings as well as a number of incidental references. Once again, Hodgson does not miss an opportunity to discuss Hasan’s contributions to Ismaili theology, which were important in understanding the fanaticism of the sect.

In 1090, Hasan seized the mountain stronghold of Alamut, which would become the center of the Nizari state. In the final chapters of the first section, Hodgson overviews the structures of the Nizari state. After the seizure of Alamut, the Ismailis in the area began an uprising against the Sunni Seljuks. In 1094, Hasan chose to split with the Fatimids over the succession crisis in which Nizar was deposed as the heir to the Caliphate. The Ismailis under the leadership of Hasan then became known as Nizaris as a result of the schism. Without the support of the Fatimids, the Nizaris were alone in their struggle against the Seljuks and this is when the Nizaris turn to assassination as a “weapon of desperation” (pg 83) Hodgson argues.

Hodgson also makes an attempt at explaining the etymology of the name assassin. Assassin is derived from the word Hashishiyya, meaning hashish eaters, and that drug is supposedly what gave the assassins the fanatical resolve for their suicidal attacks according to the enemies of the Nizaris. Hodgson suggests that “a strong sense of in-group purity and devotion” (pg 136) was the reason behind the fanaticism, not drugs. Hodgson fairly convincingly argues that the enemies of the Nizaris who already considered the Nizaris base found it easy to believe that they would resort to such a base habit as drug use to gain their fanaticism. Hodgson then looks at Islamic reactions to Nizari assassinations before closing the first section of the book.

Hodgson, in the second part of the book overviews the history during the last six leaders of an independent Nizari state. During this period, the Nizaris reach their territorial limits, and become more insular before being destroyed in during the Mongol invasions of the 1250s. The Nizaris develop their theology to an even greater extent in this period and finally the leaders of the sect proclaim themselves Imams since the line had died out with Nizar. Hodgson demonstrates that when the Nizaris “had begun to live its own life apart from Islamic society at large” (pg 143). Hodgson devotes the entirety of chapter eight to Nizari theology in its full flowering in the form of the Qiyama. Eventually Hodgson notes how the Nizaris begin a rapprochement with Sunnis, with the eventual conversion of one of the Imams, Hasan III.

Finally, Hodgson looks at the legacy of the Nizari Ismailis. Hodgson very poetically describes the whole Nizari sect like running a race in a dream. “The very air tugs at one’s feet, and one scarcely moves – yet the race is very urgent, one presses on” (pg 263). With the collapse of their state, the Nizari opposition to Islam ended, although the Ismaili sect continues up to this very day, mainly in India. The greatest part of their legacy was what “entered into the general current of Persian mystical and esoteric thought” (pg 276).

Throughout the book, Hodgson relies on a wealth of contemporary writings, but lacks only one kind of source — records produced by the Nizaris themselves. That means that most contemporary writings on the Nizaris are at best one-sided. However, this is unavoidable since the library at Alamut was “committed… to the flames” (pg 270) by Juwayni in 1256. Hodgson relies on major chroniclers of the time like Ata Malik-i Juwayni, writing in 1260, who actually read the records in Alamut’s library before ordering its destruction. In 1310, Rashid ad-Din Tabib produced an account on the Nizaris, which was considerably more objective than Juwayni’s polemical work. These chroniclers, Hodgson argues, allow for “a reasonably continuous record of internal evolution in this sect” (pg 25). Hodgson also cites a large number of secondary sources to either contrast or reinforce a point he is making.

Overall, Hodgson’s book is quite a thorough work in examining the Nizari Ismaili assassins of the Middle Ages. The book is well researched and well written, but it does have its flaws. A general audience cannot easily read The Secret Order of Assassins, even though the book is aimed at the general reader (pg 1). The book presumes that the reader already has a good understanding of early Islamic history and theology. Hodgson should have set aside some of the introduction to give the general reader a basic overview of early Islamic history and theology before delving into the intricacies of Ismaili – Fatimid relations and the esoteric theology of the Nizari sect. Without an overview, some sections of the book are virtually unreadable by the average reader. The other major weakness of the book is the utter lack of maps. Even one map would have been far more useful to the reader than being forced to consult an atlas which very often does not have all the medieval names of Middle Eastern area. It is extraordinarily frustrating to be unaware of the historical geography.

Hodgson succeeds quite well in demystifying the Nizari Ismaili Assassins, as well as in exploring the Nizaris themselves. In scanning his citations, it seems that no author up until the publication of The Secret Order of the Assassins had written such a thorough and unbiased account of the Assassins. However, the necessity of a good grounding in early Islamic history and theology for a prospective reader limits the appeal of the book, which probably explains why the Eleventh edition (2004) of the Oxford English Dictionary still refers to the Assassins as “militant fanatics… who were reputed to use hashish before being sent to murder Christian leaders” (pg 78). Hodgson’s lack of appeal means that the legend of the Assassin lives on.

Works Cited

Hodgson, Marshall G. The Secret Order of the Assassins. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania P, 1955.

“Assassin.” Oxford English Dictionary. 11th ed. 2004.

Enjoy.

So many of these completely modern synthetic belief systems try to claim some sort of lineage to the ancient past, this one going back as far as the 1421. In their frequently asked questions section they cite historical evidence against this claim, and then posit a “why not?” in their defense. They also cited Ma Yu Ching’s in China as a restaurant from 1153 CE to prove how long an organization can last. It’s odd they didn’t cite the Catholic Church as such an organization. Well, I could find no evidence of this restaurant, only finding that restaurants didn’t appear until the 13th century in China and that the world’s oldest restaurant was founded in 1725 in Spain.

The facts page is fairly funny, with some quotes from nowhere and the definition of monotheism as a belief in a totalitarian god. Spelling mistakes abound.

The quotes page is somewhat amusing, mainly because once again there are quotes from nowhere. I personally like “A man without gods has a desert in his heart.” Well, at least I have a clean heart.

However, on top of all that, this is the clincher:

Although it seems implausible, I have a letter sent from Hamburg, Germany supposedly from Odin himself. A letter sounds odd–Judaic/Christian culture has conditioned us to think in terms of burning bushes, “clouds of glory,” and pillars of fire–but anything is possible.

There’s too many fools out there to make Neopaganism a truly serious religion. But really, I blame it all on modern times. Seems to be the source of all our woes. And I have to stop wasting time.

Several bits of misinformation added to rum make for strange messages.

For those of you who don’t know, Smuggler’s Cove Rum is no longer produced. Glenora Distilleries has decided to cease production of this fine rum, probably because of low sales. It was the only hard liquor I ever liked all that much, because it was so easy to drink. The dark rum already tasted like very strong rum and coke, all you had to do was add more coke. Plus it was 45% for the same price as regular rum, and they made it just down the road from where I live in Cape Breton. It had so much going for it and now i’s gone. However, the liquor store is selling it all at 30% off tomorrow (Monday) so I shall have to stock up. You all should too, if you know what’s good for you.

So I’ll get a couple of my latest posts up to get this blog underway.