Alauddin Muhammad, or Muhammad III was born in 609/1213. He was succeeded by his father at the age of 9 years. The administration of the state affairs had been governed by his gifted mother for about six years, which was the first instance when a woman administered at Alamut.
The period of six years (618/1221 to 624/1227) was very peaceful in Alamut, during which time the Imam's mother seems to have deposed many incapable governors in Rudhbar and Kohistan. It seems that some governors and officers had misused their powers in that period. In 624/1227, Alauddin Muhammad took the power upon death of his mother at the age of 15 or 16 years, and dealt iron-handed with the persons misusing the powers. Most of them turned against him and went to live in Qazwin. In order to cover the story of their defalcations, they started to spread rumours against the Imam in bitter sarcasms. Some of them went on to propagate that the brain of Alauddin Muhammad had been affected few months before 624/1227 when a physician operated him, causing waste of excess blood. The oppositions were however surmounted very soon.

A cursory glance of the contemporary rules indicates that the Abbasid caliph Nasir had died in 622/1225, and was succeeded by Zahir (d. 623/1226), Mustansir (d. 640/1242) and Mustasim (d. 656/1258), the last of the dynasty. Jalaluddin Khwarazmshah (617-628/1220-1231) was however absolutely ruling in Central Asia.

Hasan, surnamed Jalaluddin was born in 583/1187. He is also called as Hasan III. During his childhood, his father had designated him as his successor. According to John Malcolm in 'History of Persia' (London, 1815, 1st vol., p. 405), 'He is celebrated in Persian history for the kindness and generosity of his disposition; and we are informed that this prince of the Ismailis was the handsomest man for his age'.

Nuruddin Muhammad, surnamed Ala, also called Ala Muhammad or Muhammad bin Hasan, was born around 550/1155 or 553/1158 in Alamut. He is also known as Muhammad II, and sometimes as Ziaruddin Muhammad. His mother related to the Buwahid family. Immediately upon his accession, he arrested Hasan bin Namavar and his relatives and sentenced them to death.

Bernard Lewis writes in 'The Assassins' (London, 1967, p. 95) that, 'Hasan was succeeded by his son Muhammad, who proceeded to confirm that his father and therefore he himself were descendants of Nizar, and Imams. He is said to have been a prolific writer, and during his long reign, the doctrine of the Resurrection was developed and elaborated.' B. Hourcade writes that, 'Hasan's son, Nur al-din Mohammad II (d. 607/1210), consolidated the work of his father, whom he pronounced the true Imam, the secret son of a descendant of Nizar who had hidden at Alamut.' (cf. 'Encyclopaedia of Iran and Islam' ed. by Yarshater, London, 1982, p. 800).

Ala Muhammad was greatly engaged in his interest on philosophy and esoteric doctrines. His literary output was voluminous and had compiled several books on Koranic exegesis to broach the doctrines of the Ismailis. He was well steeped in Arabic and composed many proverbs and poetry in Arabic, whose fragments had been into the memories of the Muslims in Qazwin. Few misconception had started among the Muslims during his period about the qiyama in Iran and Syria, therefore, Ala Muhammad wrote several tracts to justify the doctrines of qiyama. In his elaboration of the doctrine of qiyama, he also assigned as usual a central role to the Imam. It further implied a complete personal transformation of the Ismailis who henceforth were expected to see nothing but the Imam and the manifestation of the divine truth in him. The Imam was defined in his essence as the epiphany (mazhar) of God on earth.

The period of Ala Muhammad was longer, in which there had been no war between the Ismailis and neighbouring rules. It is possible that the Abbasid and Seljuq powers were at their downfall, and were incapable to attack the Ismaili castles.

Meanwhile, an important political change took place in Iran and other eastern lands. The Seljuqs disintegrated after Sanjar's death in 552/1157, being replaced by the Turkish amirs and generals. It must be remembered that Tughril Beg (d. 455/1063) had founded the Seljuqid empire in 447/1055 and was declined in 590/1194. This dynasty produced 15 rulers belonging to seven generations.

Towards the end of the twenfth century a new power emerged in the east. South of the Aral sea lay the land of Khawaraz in Central Asia, the seat of an old civilization, whose hereditary rulers assumed the old title of the kings as the Khwarazmshahs. In about 586/1190, the Khawarazmshah Alauddin Tekish (d. 596/1200) occupied Khorasan, thus becoming master of eastern Iran. The Khawarazmians soon came to have an impressive empire of their own, stretching from the boarders of India to Anatolia. The Seljuq dynasty came to an end everywhere except in Anatolia when Alauddin Tekish defeated Tughril III at Ray in 590/1194. The triumphant Khawarazmshah was the obvious ruler to fill the vacancy created by the Seljuqs, and in the following year, the Abbasid caliph Nasir (d. 622/1225) invested Alauddin Tekish with the sultanate of western Iran, Khorasan and Turkistan.

We come across an instance of Ustandar Hazarasf bin Shahrnush (560-586/1164-1190), the Baduspanid ruler of Rustamdar and Ruyan, who had harboured himself at Alamut. According to 'Jamiut-Tawarikh' (pp. 170-173), Hazarasf had cemented his close relation with the Ismailis residing at Rudhbar and granted them few castles in his territories. When his relation deteriorated with his superior, Husam ad-Dawla Ardashir (567-602/1172-1206), the Bawandid Ispahbad of Mazandarn, he took refuge at Alamut as a result. In due course, Hazarasf raided his former territories with the help of the Ismaili fidais and killed an Alid ruler of Daylaman. He was at last arrested and killed by Ardashir in 586/1190.

The hostile Sunni rulers had maintained the tradition of occasionally massacring the Ismailis. It is reported, for instance, according to Ibn Athir (12th vol., pp. 76-7) that a bulk of people accused of Ismailism were killed in lower Iraq in the year 600/1204.

Hasan Ali, or Abu'l Hasan, surnamed Zikrihi's Salam (peace be on his mention) was born in Alamut. He is reported to have born in 539/1145, but according to another tradition, he was born in 536/1142.
His other titles were Maliku'r riqab (Lord of the slaves), Maliku'l qulub (Lord of the hearts), Malik as-Salam (Lord of peace), Hasan-i Kabir (Hasan, the great) and Qaim al-Qiyama (Lord of resurrection). Among the Iranian sources, he is widely known as Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam, and in the Syrian sources, he is called Aqa dhikrihi al-Salam. Mustapha Qazwini writes in 'Tarikh-i Guzida' (ed. by Nicholson, Leiden, 1910, p. 523) that, 'He was also known as Kura Kiya (Lord of the villages) in Qazwin, a fact which suggests that the people of Qazwin were especially acquainted with him.'

The historians call him Hasan II with a view to count Hasan bin Sabbah as Hasan I in the series of Alamut's rulers, while other make his father, al-Kahir as Hasan I and Hasan II to him in the list of Alamut's Imams.

To understand the Muslim world, we must cast a rapid glance over contemporary period that the Abbasid caliph Mustanjid (d. 566/1170) was ruling in Baghdad at that time. The Seljuq sultan Arslan (d. 571/1176) was reigning in Iran. In Egypt, the last ruler of the Fatimid empire was al-Adid (d. 567/1171). The Muslim rules were submerging in declination, therefore, none among them had a courage to attack on Alamut.

According to 'Religion, Learning and Science in the Abbasid Period' (ed. by Young, Latham and Ser Jeuit, London, 1990, p. 245), 'Al- Hasan bin Sabbah's two dai successors were followed at Alamut by the Imam al-Hasan bin Qahir bin Muhtadi bin Hadi bin Nizar.'

Ata Malik Juvaini (1126-1283) compiled 'Tarikh-i Jhangusha' in 658/ 1260 which stands an early source material. He and later historians are responsible to distort the historical fact and produced an incredible image of the Ismaili history and doctrines. Juvaini's work, to quote W. Barthold in 'Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion' (London, 1928, p. 40), 'has not yet been valued at his deserts.' Barthold further writes, 'Juvaini is not completely master of his materials; in his narrative there are sometimes flagrant contradictions to be found.' (Ibid.) According to 'Historians of the Middle East' (London, 1962, p. 136), 'Juvaini's sources appear to have been purely oral.' Sir John Glubb also writes in 'The Lost Centuries' (London, 1967, p. 271) that, 'Juvaini served under Halagu in Persia and was thus perhaps obliged to flatter him.' Henry H. Howorth remarks in his 'History of the Mongols' (London, 1876, 1st vol., pp.20-21) that, 'His position prevented Juvaini from being anything but a panegyrist of the Mongols, whose conquests he excuses, and whose western campaign he argues was providentially arranged, so that by their means the religion of Islam might be widely disseminated.' D'Ohsson was the first European to have examined the work of Juvaini critically, and accused him of extravagant flattery of the Mongols, vide 'Histoire des Mongols' (Amsterdam, 1834, 1st vol., p. 20). In the words of Marshall Hodgson, 'Juwayni read records in the Alamut Nizari library after its capture, before ordering its destruction. He wrote an account based on these sources, but altered in form to suit an anti-Nizari taste, and decked with curses.' (op. cit., p. 26). It is therefore, difficult to determine any exactitude in the hyperbolic words of Juvaini as Marshall Hodgson also regards him, 'a special enemy of the Ismailis.' (op. cit. p. 274)

Juvaini emphasised in placing Imam Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam (Hasan II) as the son of Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug, in a doubtful manner. His objective was to connect the lineage of the Imams with Muhammad bin Kiya. Juvaini and the later historians however had to admit that when Imam Hasan II made his appearance before his followers, thronged at Alamut, none opposed or considered him as the son of Muhammad bin Kiya. If there had been a little doubt, it is possible that they, or a faction must have opposed without taking oath of allegiance, as it is a corner-stone of the Ismaili doctrines that an Imam must be a son of the Imam. No person can dare or venture on that occasion to claim for Imamate, and if it was true, it must have been claimed in other region, and not inside the castle, where his life was most possibly fraught in danger.

According to 'Dabistan al-Mazahib' (comp. in 1653, p. 237), 'Only the enemies of Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam considered him the son of Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug.' Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza writes in 'Syrian Ismailis at the time of the Crusades' (an unpublished dissertation, University of Durham, 1963, p. 191) that, 'During his (Hasan II) reign, his enemies spread false rumours that he was not a genuine descendant of Nizar, but these slanders were received by his followers with disgust and dissatisfaction. As for the Imam himself, he paid no attention to such slanders, but continued to send orders to his governors and dais under his seal and signature which include his family trees, thus ignoring the propaganda of his calumniators.'

Juvaini and other attempted to equate Imam Hasan II with Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya, making them one character, and tried to brush aside the historicity of Hasan II. In sum, Juvaini emphasised from beginning to end that Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya had impersonated as an Imam. The undeniable thing in the face of facts however reveals that these two persons, each known as Hasan at one time were two separate characters. Dr. Mustapha Ghaleb in 'The Ismailis of Syria' (Beirut, 1970, pp. 73-74) has appended an important letter of Imam Hasan II, which had been circulated among the Ismailis in 558/1163. This letter itself asserts that both Hasan II and Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya were two separate persons at one time. It reads:- 'Our deputy, al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug is our dai and hujjat. All those who follow our doctrine have to obey him in the religious and civic affairs, and to execute his orders and consider his speeches as ours. We hope that they will not disobey; but be abided by it and act as if it was issued by us.'

It must, of course, be borne in mind that there had been three hidden Imams (al-a'imma al-masturin) between al-Nizar and Hasan II during the period of dawr-i satr in Alamut, whose historicity had been also stamped in the work of Juvaini.

One important Syrian manuscript has been discovered, whose author and date of writing are unknown. The copyist gives his date of writing in 1263/1846. According to Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza, 'The only clues that can be obtained are from the literary style and from the biographical works of the Imams. These suggest that the date (of the above Ms.) may be taken as sometimes during the second half of the 14th century A.D.' (p.176). On pp. 249-250, the author of this Ms. gives the genealogy of Imam Hasan II as 'Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam bin al-Qahir bin al-Mohtadi bin al-Hadi bin al-Nizar.' Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza concludes his remarks that, 'This is the only available Syrian manuscript which gives the same genealogical tree of the Nizari Imams as the one accepted by the modern Aga Khani Ismailis.' (p.176).

Muhibb Ali Qunduzi compiled his 'Irshadu't-talibin di dhikr A'immati'l-Ismailiyya' in 930/1523 and asserts that there were three hidden Imams between Hasan II and al-Nizar, viz. Hadi, Mohtadi and Qahir. Ghiyasu-din bin Humami'd-din Khondamir (d.941/1534) compiled 'Habibu's-Siyar' (Bombay, 1857, 3rd vol., p. 77) in 935/1528, also admits that there were three generations between Hasan II and al- Nizar, i.e., Hadi, Mohtadi and Qahir. Abu Ishaq Kohistani, who died in the beginning of the 16th century also writes in 'Haft Bab' (tr. by W. Ivanow, Bombay, 1959, p. 23) that, 'Mawlana Mustansir was succeeded by Mawlana Nizar, Mawlana Hadi, Mawlana Mohtadi, Mawlana Qahir and Mawlana Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam.'

Among the modern scholars, John Norman Hollister writes in 'The Shia of India' (London, 1953, p. 314) that, 'Nizarin records are scarce having been largely destroyed in the period of Hasan's grandson, or by Halagu Khan when the fortress of Alamut was taken, but the traditions of the sect indicate that there were three Imams during this period: Hadi, son of Nizar, Mahdi or Muhtadi, and Qahir.' According to Margoliouth in 'Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics' (Edinburg, 1974, 2nd vol., p. 141) that, 'Hasan II though supposed to be the son of the governor of Alamut, was in reality the heir of this Nizar.' W. Ivanow also states in 'Ismailitica' (Calcutta, 1922, p. 71) that, 'The version that Hasan was a lineal descendant of Kiya Buzrug Ummid naturally cannot be of sectarian origin, even should it be true.'

The celebrated Ismaili poet hailed from Khorasan, called Rais Hasan had visited Alamut around 587/1191, and glorified Ala Muhammad in his poem, vide 'An Old Ismaili Poem' tr. by W. Ivanow (cf. 'Ismaili', March, 1940, pp. 7-8). It was also a sort of prayer for seeking forgiveness for a breach of the mission rules in the Syrian community, and arrived in Iran to behold the Imam without the consent of the community authority. Its few couplets however reads:-
We have come here without obtaining the consent of our jamat.

As there is very little sense of unity and internal peace, so much needed in the community.

We have come here, violating the rules and commandments of the dawat. We have come full of the sense of shame and repentence.

For having not honoured and respected the commandment of the guidance.

We have come to pray endlessly, in thousand ways, to forgive us these faults of our behaviour.

In Alamut, the period of Ala Muhammad was noted for learning and prosperity. Taylor writes in 'The History of Mohammedanism and its sects' (London, 1851, p. 187) that, 'He was a diligent student himself and wrote several treatises on philosophy and jurisprudence which are valued highly even by those who were enemies of his order.' Rais Hasan had glorified the Imam in his poem, as referred to above. Its few couplets are given below:-

O Thou, Holy One, we have come to Thee from Khorasan, we have arrived before Thee to fall prostrate in our obedience.

We have come to Thee not for begging for money, gifts or honours, we have not come to beg for the grant either of horses, or saddles, coats, caps or robes of honour.

We have come to Thee as the source of help and purity of religion.

Be kind, and quench our thirst with water of life, because we have come to Thee in great thirst for mercy.

It has been heretofore discussed that the Ismailis disliked wars to cause unnecessary blood-shed with their enemies. But when their sworn enemies hurled in the fire of war to extend their influence, threatening the Ismaili power, the Ismaili fidais only killed the germs of mischief to avoid wars. Thus, Kizil Arslan (582-587/1186-1191), the Ildenizid ruler of Azerbaijan made a plan to extend his power, and constant wars in Mazandaran, brought him ultimately in inimical touch with the Ismailis in Alamut. On that juncture, Muzaffar bin Muhammad, the chief Ismaili dai, sent three Ismaili fidais belonging to Southern Khorasan on secret a mission to kill Kizil Arslan, who had become not only a threat, but a root cause of breaking peace in the region. These three fidais were Husam of Avizi, Hasan of Tun and Mansur of Chahak. The mission was dangerous and difficult as well. Kizil Arslan at that time was accompanied by three horsemen, two among them fled in fear, one towards the rocks, and other hid himself in a cave; and one was killed. It appears that the king managed to reach his palace, where he had been killed on one night in Shawal, 587/November, 1191. Ibn Athir writes that his murderers remained unknown, but Qazwini narrates that the Ismailis were suspected. Rais Hasan, who had come in Alamut from Khorasan, had composed a poem in praise of these Khorasani fidais, whose few couplets are given below:-

Praise, glory and thousands of benedictions be upon the three heroes, the brave swordsmen, capturers of kings!

Upon those victorious warriors on the path of the religion, out of fear and fright for whom the world prays for mercy!

The Ildigiz, through his perversion and wickedness, had chosen, at the bidding of his fate, the path of arrogance

All three came back, with the help of the Qaim, (bringing) victory and happiness to all sides.

Every one who thinks of opposing the Lord of the Universe, is punished by the fate by violent death.

The chosen prophets preached and warned people about this from the beginning, that such is the promised punishment.

The king, who possesses more than a hundred thousand cavalry, would be frightened by a single warrior.

Did not today the sun of the Great Resurrection rise from behind the loftiness of the preaching of Mustansir, and of the prayer of Nizar?

Is not it so that whoever has no respect for Him, indulging in these terrible acts of tyranny, he will on the day of judgement be rejected by God, helpless as if drowning in mud?

During the last 16 years of Ala Muhammad's Imamate and reign, the Iranian Ismailis were engaged once again in petty warfare with their close neighbours. The Ismailis of Rudhbar had certain disputes with Mazandaran, and they had actually given refuge to Bisutun, the ruler of Ruyan who had engineered rebellion against the Bawandid Husam ad-Dawla Ardashir. In the meantime, the Ismailis began to spread their influences in Mazandaran and killed Rukn ad-Dawla Qarin, the younger brother of the Bawandid Shams al-Mulk Shah Ghazi Rustam II (602- 606/1206-1210).

In the interim, the Ismailis of Rudhbar were confronted with the Khwarazmian general, who had replaced the Seljuqs in western Iran and were expanding their influence in Daylam. In 602/1205, Miyajiq, a Khwarazmian general, trickled and murdered a bulk of the Ismailis from Alamut and thereupon the Khwarazmian troops made themselves as the friends of the Qazwin, the traditional enemies of the Ismailis, and made raids from time to time on Rudhbar

Imam Ala Muhammad died on 10th Rabi I, 607/September 1, 1210 after the longest rule of 46 years. He had two sons, of whom the elder, Jalaluddin Hasan was succeeded to the Imamate.

The Ismaili fidais were struggling on one hand against their ardent enemies in Syria, and their dais were penetrating into the Frankish lands as far as Hungary on the other. The word Hungary is derived from the Turkish On Ogur, meaning 'ten arrows' or 'tribes,' almost referring to the ethnic people of Hungary, called Magyars. It is a small landlocked state in central Europe. In 1000 A.D., Hungary achieved the status of an independent kingdom, and adopted the Roman form of Christianity. The Ismailis were the first to introduce the message of Islam in Europe and entered into Hungary most probably during the time of different kings, such as St. Stephen (1000-1038), Ladislas I (1077-1095), Kalman (1095-1116), Geza II (1141-1162), Bella III (1172-1173), Imre (1196-1204), Laszlo (1204-1205), Andreas II (1205-1235) etc.
Dr. Ismail Balic writes in 'Traces of Islam in Hungary' that, 'Islam was first brought to Hungary by the Ismailites (in Izmaelitak or Boszormenyek). These were parts of the Turkish Folk of Chevalison and of the Volga Bulgarians who had emigrated during the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries and formed an important political, military, financial and commercial factor. The first Islamic author to speak of this Muslim community was Yaqut al-Hamawi (575-626/1179-1229).' (cf. 'The Islamic Review', London, Feb., 1950, 38th vol., No.2). Yaqut writes in his famous geographical dictionary, 'Mu'ajam al-Buldan,' (comp. 625/1228, vide also Wustenfeld's edition, Leipzig, 1866, 1st vol., p. 469) about his meeting with Ismaili youth in Syria who were studying Islam there and brought some details of the history and life of their people in Hungary. D.M. Donaldson in 'The Shiite Religion' (London, 1933, pp. 292-3) also admits that the Crusaders came to know about Shiism through the Ismailis. N.A. Daniel writes in 'Islam and the West' (Edinburgh, 1960, p. 318) that, 'It has been pointed out that it was in Ismaili form that the Crusaders knew Shiism.'

Rashid al-Din Sinan enjoyed unprecendented popularity in the Syrian Ismaili community, and it seems that he had been given liberty from Alamut to deal the political affairs in Syria at his disposal. He died in 589/1193 in the castle of Kahf, and was buried at Jabal-i Mashhad in Masiyaf, where he had passed his life in worship and study of astronomy. Sibt ibn Jawzi (d. 654/1256) describes Sinan in his 'Mirat al-Zaman' (p. 269) as 'a man of knowledge, statecraft and skill in winning men's hearts.' Sinan left the Ismailis of Syria straddling a frontier between the Franks and the Muslims. Religiously, Rashiduddin Sinan used to hold various lectures on Islam and Ismailism, whose few intellectual products are given below:- 'If the sea was the ink for the words glorifying my God, it will be consumed before the consumption of my God's words. The Imam can hear the words of God, by his heart and his sense of hear; secrectly or loudly at any time he wants, i.e., when he chooses to hear. And the Imam is he, who would never be missed on earth, any hour, or moment. Understand these facts, and you will be rightly guided by the will of God.'

Returning the thread of our narrative, it is recounted that Qais bin Mansur al-Dadikhi was known to have visited Alamut during the period of Imam Ala Muhammad. He was born in Dadikh, a town in the district of Aleppo. He lived till the time of Ala Muhammad and returned to Aleppo in 648/1250, where he died in 655/1257.

Abu'l Hasan bin Suleman bin Muhammad, known as Rashiduddin Sinan was born in 528/1133 at Aqr al-Sudan, a village in the district of Basra. He was handsome, of middle height, had dark eyes and was acute, learned, eloquent and quick-witted. He was brought up in Basra, where he became a schoolmaster and was converted to Ismailism. Subsequently, he went to Alamut where he was well received, and indoctrinated with Ismailism. He also studied theology, philosophy and the doctrines of philosophers and Ikhwan as-Safa. Soon after his ascension in 557/1162, Imam Hasan II had sent him to Syria as a deputy of dai Abu Muhammad. A historian quoted by Kamaluddin (d. 660/1262) reports a contemporary's description of a visit to Sinan, and a conversation with him, in the course of which Sinan is quoted as giving this account of his journey to Syria: 'He (Hasan II) delegated me to Syria....He had given me orders and provided me with letters. I arrived in Mosul and stayed at the mosque of the date-sellers. Thence I went to Raqqa. I had a letter to one of our comrade there, and when I delivered it to him, he furnished me with provisions and lent me a mount to carry me to Aleppo. There I met another to whom I gave a letter, and he lent me a mount and sent me on al-Kahf, where I was ordered to stay. I stayed there until Shaikh Abu Muhammad, who was in command, died in the mountains.' Sinan therefore became the chief of the mission in Syria after the death of daiAbu Muhammad in 558/1163. Benjamin of Tudela, who travelled there in 558/1163, about the time Sinan arrived, reported that the Ismailis had been at war with the Franks.
Sinan was not only an outstanding personality but also an efficient administrator. Once well established, his first task was to consolidate his realm. He made Masiyaf as his headquarters and rapidly swept off the internal dissensions of the community. It was within the Ismaili terriroty that Sinan did his great work. In order to meet the dangers from outside, Sinan began reorganising his men and choosing the most eligibles, and devoted to form the corps of the fidais. He had his fidais trained in various languages and in the art of collecting secret information from the courts of kings and princes. He organised an elaborate communication system, making use of carrier pigeons, or the pigeon post, and coded messages by which the commanders of the various Ismaili strongholds were kept informed about the news of brewing trouble, his plans or the possible threats to any of the widely scattered Ismaili fortresses. These messenger birds proved beneficial, which could fly unscathed back to their lofts from distant lands.

How Sinan could resist successfully before internal intrigues and external menaces is a mystery to many writers, and the history, as distinct from fiction, proves otherwise. The outstanding secrecy of his success appears to lie in his extraordinary ability to foresee trouble and nip it in the bud. He has established a perfect espionage system which covered not only his territory but that of his enemies as well. According to 'The Encyclopaedia of Islam' (Leiden, 1936, 3rd vol., p. 1123), 'The stories connected with Sinan chiefly centre around his organisation of fidais, which he used as an instrument for removing his political opponents by assassination. Undoubtedly, there are some grain of truth in these stories; but it is obvious that excited bazar rumours greatly exaggerated them, wrongly attributing to him and his organisation many exploits for which they were not responsible.'

Sinan also renovated and repaired the fortress of Rusafa, 40 miles from Masiyaf; and the fortress of Khwabi, 4 miles from Kahf. He also occupied the fort of Alika, just 8 miles away from the Frankish fortress of Marakab. With the taking of these fortresses, the Ismailis in Syria had however carved out their own niche in the aggressive orbits. He certainly brought the Ismailis to the peak of their power and fame, and was in close contact with the ruling Imams of Alamut for necessary directions.

In Syria, the Sunni rulers and the Crusaders were a constant threat to the Ismailis, and therefore, Sinan concentrated his due attention on the Sunni rulers, who were extending their hegemony over Syria. Nuruddin (541-569/1146-1174), the Zangid ruler of Aleppo, and Salauddin Yousuf bin Ayyub (d. 589/1193), known as Saladin in the occidental chronicles of the Crusades, who put an end of the Fatimid rule in 567/1171 and proclaimed Abbasid suzeranity in Egypt by establishing the Ayyubid dynasty; were at the height of their power. They led the holy war against the Crusaders, and were potentially greater enemies than the Franks for the Ismailis.

Being a shrewd strategist and diplomatic minded, Rashiduddin Sinan followed suitable measures in dealing with the outside world in defending the Ismaili state in Syria. He established peaceful relations with the Crusaders, who had been fighting the Ismailis for several decades over the possession of certain strongholds. Most of the strongholds which the Ismailis seized at Jabal Bahra in Kahf had previously been in the hands of the Crusaders, and many important Frankish castles were situated very close to the Ismaili strongholds. In 537/1142, the chief of the Tripoli gave to the Hospitaller order the fortress, called Hisn al-Akrad, 25 miles south of Masiyaf, and a few years later there are reports of fighting between the Ismailis and the Franks over the fortress of Maynaqa. Realizing the danger of being nearly surrounded by both Muslim and Frankish hostile forces, Sinan attempted to reach a settlement with the Frankish Templar order, and agreed to pay them a yearly tribute. Sinan sent an embassy in 569/1173 to Amalric I (1163-1174), the king of Jerusalem, hoping to be absolved from paying the yearly tribute to the Templars. King Amalric agreed that the tribute to the Templars should be cancelled. The Templars however disapproved this negotiation, and when the Ismaili embassy started for the homeland journey, Sinan's emissaries were killed by a Templar knight, Walter of Mesnil. Amalric took punitive action against the Templar knight, but was died in 570/1174, and as a result, the negotiations between Sinan and the Franks of Jerusalem became fruitless.

Nuruddin Zangi was also a great threat in Syria and was planning a major expedition against the Ismailis just before his death, when he exchanged unfriendly correspondence with Rashiduddin Sinan. Ibn Khallikan (3rd vol., pp. 340-1) quotes a letter of Sinan, which he copied from the works of Abdur Rahim bin Ali al-Baysani al-Qadi al-Fazil al-Misri (529-596/1135-1200), which is in reponse of the harsh and threatening letter of Nuruddin Zangi, it reads:- 'We have examined your letter in sum and in detail, and have well appreciated the words and deeds with which it threatens us. Admire the fly buzzing at the ear of the elephant! and the gnat which is counted as an emblem (of littleness). Already, before you, other people have held a similar discourse, but we hurled destruction upon them, and they had none to assist them! Do you mean to oppose the truth and uphold falsehood? They who act perversely shall know the fate which awaits them! As for your words, that you will cut off my head and tear my fortresses from the firm mountains which sustain them, know that these are delusive thoughts, vain imaginations; for the substance is not destroyed by the disparition of its accidents, neither is the soul dissolved by the maladies of the body. How wide the difference between strong and weak, between noble and vile!.....In a common and current proverb it is said: `Is a goose to be threatened with (being cast into) the river?' Prepare therefore a tunic against misfortune and a cloak against affliction; for evils of your own doing shall prevail against you ; you shall feel convinced that they proceeded from yourself, and that you were like the animal which scraped with his hoof till it found its death, and like him who cut off his nose with his own hand....'

In the meantime, Nuruddin Zangi died in 569/1174, it gave an opportunity to Saladin to emerge as a champion of the Muslims to lead them in the holy war against the Crusaders. Saladin strove towards incorporating Arabia, Iraq and Syria into his nascent Ayyubid empire. With the height of his power, he was a most dangerous enemy of the Ismailis, rather more than the Franks. On that juncture, the Ismailis of Syria and the Zangids of Aleppo were induced to formulate a joint bloc against their mutual enemy Saladin, who had entered Damascus in 570/1174. He also marched northward, and after capturing Hims, he laid a siege to Aleppo. Meanwhile, Gumushtigin, the ruler of Aleppo and Rashiduddin Sinan mutually decided to kill Saladin in order to save their states from being destructed by the Ayyubid power. Thus, a fidai was dispatched, who penetrated Saladin's camp, but missed to kill him in 570/1175. Next year, when Saladin besieged Azaz, north of Aleppo, the fidai failed in his second attempt to kill him in 571/1176, but Saladin escaped with only slight injuries. Shortly after this event, Saladin in a vengeful move, invaded the Ismaili territory and besieged Masiyaf. Lane Poole writes in 'Saladin' (Beirut, 1964, p. 149) that, 'When Saladin laid siege to Masyaf, Sinan was absent, and the king's summons to surrender reached him at a village near Kadmus. He told the messenger that he must have a personal interview with Saladin; and then, since access to Masyaf was blocked by the leaguer, he retired with only two companions to the top of a neighbouring mountain, whence he looked down upon the siege and awaited the event.'

It is said that Sinan summoned Shihabuddin Mahmud bin Takash, the governor of Hammah and the maternal uncle of Saladin, and told him that unless the siege was raised, Saladin and himself and other nobles would get an unpleasant taste of Ismaili swords. Thus the siege was lifted very soon on the mediation of Shihabuddin Mahmud bin Takash. According to another reports, Saladin woke up suddenly to find on his bed a leaf of paper on the top, pinned by a dagger. There were verses on the paper that:-

By the Majesty of the Kingdom! what you possess will escape you, in spite of all, but victory remains to us We acquaint you that we hold you, and that we reserve you till your reckoning be paid.

Saladin gave a great and terrible cry and the guards and the officers rushed in the tent. He showed them the letter. According to Lane Poole, Saladin said, 'Go to this man and ask him for a self-conduct, and pray him not to punish me for my past action' (Ibid. p. 150). The messenger went to seek Sinan on the mountain; but he made answer that there could be no warranty for the king's life so long as he continued the siege. Saladin therefore withdrew himself, in such haste that he even left his artillery behind him; and at the Bridge of Ibn Munkidh, he received the self-conduct.'

Thus, Saladin sought peace with Sinan and concluded a truce with him. The overt hostilities between Sinan and Saladin came to an end as a result. Henceforward, the Syrian Ismailis seem to have thrown their weight on the side of Saladin in his wars against the Franks in the historic battle of Hittin, near Tiberias in 583/1187. The reason for this was that the rigorous attitude of the Frankish terrorists orders, namely Templars and Hospitallers towards the Ismailis, left Sinan with no alternative other than to ally himself with Saladin. It is therefore, asserted that the Ismailis had played prominent role during the third Crusade (1189-1192), and became to be discussed in the occidental chronicles.

In 570/1175, according to Ibn Jawzi, the Ismailis had been menaced by the Nubuwiyya, a terrorist band of the Sunni based in Iraq, and their ten thousand horsemen attacked on Bab and Buza'ah. They slaughtered 13000 local people, including a heavy toll of the Ismaili lives and carried off much booty and captives. The Nubuwiyya order once again attacked in 572/1176, forcing the Ismailis to evacuate the region. The Spanish traveller Ibn Jubayr, who passed through Bab in 580/1184, relates the above event occurred about eight years before his arrival, in a harsh and derogatory manners, vide 'The Travels of Ibn Jubayr' tr. by R.J.C. Broadhurst, London, 1952, pp. 259-60.

According to 'Jamiut Tawarikh' (pp. 170-3), the Sunni theologian Fakhruddin Razi (543-606/1149-1209), in his lectures to theological students in Ray harshly reviled the Ismailis. He used to say in his lectures that, 'This is against the Islam. May God curse and disgrace them.' Hearing such unbearable words, a fidai was sent from Alamut to have it stopped. There he enrolled himself as a student, and attended Fakhruddin's lectures daily for seven months, until he found an opportunity of seeing him alone in his room. The fidaibrandished a dagger and menaced him. Fakhruddin jumped aside, and said: 'What do you want?' The fidai replied: 'I want to slit your belly from the breast to the navel, because you have cursed us from the pulpit at each mention.' After a tussle, the fidai hurled him to the floor and sat on his chest with his poniard at his throat. The terrified theologian promised to repent, and to refrain from such attacks in future. The fidai allowed him to be persuaded, and accepting a solemn undertaking from Fakhruddin to mend his ways, produced a bag containing 365 gold dinars with two Yamenite garments, being the first payment of a pension that the Imam granted for him, and assured him for a similar amount of grant for every year if he kept his promise. Henceforth, Fakhruddin Razi took good care to avoid expressions offensive to the Ismailis. One of his students, noting this change, asked, why he no longer assailed the Ismailis. The theologian replied: 'It is not advisable to curse the Ismailis, for they have both weighty and trenchant arguments.' It may be noted that Fakhruddin Razi had truly changed his attitude, and condemned one Sunni theologian, who tried to refute the Ismaili doctrines with fanatical and ill-informed abuse, and praised another for correctly citing an Ismaili text. His point, of course, was that the theological controversy must be based on correct information and an intelligent understanding of an opponent's point of view. Farkhruddin Razi received the annual grant from Alamut for five years through Rais Muzaffar until he was in Ray.

Muhammad Taqi bin Ali Reza compiled 'Athar-i Muhammadi' in 1310/1893, dealing with the history of the Ismaili Imams. It relates one incredible story that Kiya Buzrug Ummid had made a will to his son, Muhammad bin Kiya that he must give up the power in favour of al- Mohtadi when he grew young. One day, when Muhammad bin Kiya asked about it to al-Mohtadi, the latter said, 'This is the task of my son Hasan after our death.' Muhammad bin Kiya feared to hear it, since al-Mohtadi had no male issue at that time. When al-Mohtadi was at death-bed, he summoned Muhammad bin Kiya, and said, 'My wife is expecting a child. You take her to your house after me and do not make a little snag in her treatment. She will bear a son, whom you name 'Hasan', because he will be like his forefather in beauty, virtue, knowledge, ethic, fame and grandeur. You must consider him as your own son, and deliver him the power.' Thus, Muhammad bin Kiya acted upon these instructions.
Granted that the above story is historically genuine, then it implies that al-Kahir would have been born in 552/1157 immediately after the death of his father, al-Mohtadi. It determines the age of al-Kahir for five years when he died in 557/1162, which is absolutely false.

Secondly, the above story indicates the name of the son of al-Mohtadi as 'Hasan' instead of al-Kahir, brushing off the historicity of al-Kahir. Granted for a while that the son of al-Mohtadi was Hasan, then it means that Hasan (or Hasan II) was hardly nine years old during his death in 561/1166, which is also unbelievable. In sum, the story of 'Athar-i Muhammadi' referred to above is quite fictitious and contrary to the Ismaili traditions.

Al-Mohtadi was also taking care of the horses bred by his father in the fortress of Lamasar. He is also reported to have taken visits of surrounding castles in Rudhbar. He died in 552/1157 at the age of 52 years. He had vested the office of Imamate in his elder son, al-Kahir.

In 1966, the American Numismatic Society, New York acquired a great rarity of a coin, minted in 553/1158. It was illustrated in the American Numismatic Society's Annual Report for 1966 (pl.III,2). George C. Miles gave its detail in 'Coins of the Assassins of Alamut'(Orientalia Lovaniensa Periodica, 3-5, 1972-74, pp. 155-162). Its size is 14 mm., weighing 0.635 gm. Its obverse side bears the name, 'Muhammad bin (Kiya) Buzrug Ummid' and in the marginal legend, the name of the mint, kursi al-Daylam and the date 553 A.H. (1158 A.D.) have been clearly inscribed. The reverse area begins with the Shiite formula: 'Ali is the friend of God' and the next three lines read: 'al-Mustapha li dinillah, Nizar' (Nizar, the chosen for the religion of God). These three lines are followed by the marginal legend: 'amir al-mo'minin, salwat Allah alayhi wa-ala aba'ihi al-tahirin wa-abna'hi al-akramin' (the blessings of God be upon him and upon his ancestors, the pure ones; and upon his descendants, the most honourable ones).
George C. Miles reproduced the photographs of the following six coins:

There are few other coins minted at kursi al-Daylam with the same legends, differing only in dates.

It implies that the six coins from above had been struck during the Imamate of al-Mohtadi (530-552/1136-1157), and the two coins during the period of his successor, al-Kahir (552-557/1157-1162). It must be remembered that the early Imams in Alamut lived in concealment. They could show their slight appearances, but not whereabouts. None among them had taken power of the Nizari state at that time, and therefore, the name of the ruler, Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug (532-557/1138-1162) was struck in the coins for governing the state. Paula Sanders however remarks in his 'Ritual, Politics, and the City in Fatimid Cairo' (New York, 1994, p. 85) that, 'The authority of the Fatimid caliph was challenged by the coins struck by the Nizaris at Alamut in the name of Nizar.'

The above coins however bear the benedictory words, invoking the prayers for al-Nizar, his ancestors and his descendants. This antique and numismatic evidence further concludes that the descendants of al-Nizar in fact existed in Alamut, and rules out an idea of the historians, purporting the discontinuation of the Nizarid line. Ibn Khallikan (1211-1282) writes in his 'Wafayat al-A'yan' (tr. de Slane, Paris, 1868, 1st vol., p. 160) that, 'Nizar is the person from whom the Ismaili princes (Imams), the possessors of the fortress of Alamut and other castles in Persia; trace their descent.'

Meanwhile, the Seljuq sultan Daud, who had severely domineered on the Ismailis in Azerbaijan and was becoming a major threat. In 538/1143, four Ismaili fidais had to kill him at Tabriz to avoid further massacres.