[7] The Arabian mode of swearing fealty. The chief held out his hand,

and the people one by one struck their hand flat upon it as they passed.

[8] It will be remembered that the native population of Medîna was

divided into the _Aus_ and _Khazraj_, and Sád belonged to

the latter. Enmity and fighting had long prevailed between them before

Mahomet’s arrival (_Life of Mahomet_, p. 119).

[9] The followers of Mahomet were divided into the _Muhâjerîn_, or

Refugees from Mecca and elsewhere; and the _Ansâr_ or Helpers, the

citizens of Medîna (_Ibid._ p. 189).

[10] The tradition regarding Zobeir and Talha, perhaps arose from

their attempt at the Caliphate, and refusal to acknowledge Aly, five

and twenty years afterwards. As to Aly himself, the traditions vary.

By some he is said to have been among the first to swear fealty to Abu

Bekr. But the more general tradition is that he did not do so till

Fâtima, who had a grudge against Abu Bekr for her father’s patrimony,

died (_Life of Mahomet_, p. 516). There are other tales, but

they all bear the stamp of Abbasside fabrication; such as of Omar

threatening to burn Aly’s house over his head; Zobeir rushing out with

a sword, &c. We are even told that Abu Sofiân taunted Aly and Abbâs

with allowing an insignificant branch of the Coreish to seize the

Caliphate from them; likened them to a hungry donkey tethered up, or to

a tent-peg made only to be beaten; and offered to help them with horse

and foot, but that Aly declined his offer. These stories are childish

and apocryphal. There is absolutely nothing in the antecedents of Aly,

or his subsequent history, to render it in the least probable that

during the first two Caliphates, he advanced any claim whatever, or

indeed was in a position to do so. It was not till the reign of Othmân

that any idea arose of a superior right in virtue of his having been

the cousin of Mahomet and husband of Fâtima.

It is said that as the people crowded to the hall, where Sád lay sick,

to salute Abu Bekr, one cried out: ‘Have a care lest ye trample upon

Sád, and kill him under foot.’ ‘The Lord kill him, as he deserveth!’

was the response of the heated Omar. ‘Softly, Omar!’ interposed Abu

Bekr, ‘blandness and courtesy are better than curses and sharp words.’

Indeed, throughout this chapter Abu Bekr appears to great advantage.

[11] See _Life of Mahomet_, p. 500.

[12] _Life of Mahomet_, p. 498.

[13] Some others of the chief Companions, Aly, Zobeir, &c., appear also

to have remained behind; but they may possibly not have originally

formed a part of Osâma’s army ordered to reassemble.

[14] The chronology at this period is uncertain, and the dates only

approximate. On the Prophet’s death we plunge at once from light into

obscurity. For the next two or three years we are left in doubt, not

only as to the period, but even as to the sequence of important events

and great battles. In the narrative of this expedition, we only know

that the army started soon after Abu Bekr’s accession, but not before

the spirit of rebellion had begun to declare itself, which last,

according to one tradition, was within ten days of the Prophet’s death.

The length of the expedition varies, according to different traditions,

from 40 days to 70.

[15] See _Life of Mahomet_, chapter 32.

[16] _Ibid._ chapter xxx. Amru hastened home through Bahrein

immediately on hearing of Mahomet’s death. Corra ibn Hobeira, Chief

of the Beni Amir, took him aside, after a hospitable entertainment,

and advised, as the only way to avoid revolt, that the tithe upon

the Bedouins should be foregone. Amru stormed at him for this; and

subsequently, on Corra being brought in a prisoner, advised his

execution as an apostate.

On reaching Medîna, Amru made known the disheartening news to his

friends, who crowded round him. Omar coming up, all were silent, but

he divined what the subject of their converse was: ‘I think,’ he said,

‘that ye were speaking of what we have to fear from the Arab tribes?’

On their confessing, he made them swear that they would not discourage

the people by letting the matter spread, and added: ‘Fear ye not this

thing; verily I fear far more what the Arabs will suffer from you, than

what ye will suffer from them. Verily if a company of the Coreish were

to enter into a cave alone, the Bedouins would follow you into the

same. They are a servile crew: wherefore, fear the Lord, and fear not

them.’

[17] Or Abrac. For the Beni Abs and Dzobiân, see _Life of

Mahomet_, vol. i. pp. ccxxiv. et seq.

[18] The riding camels had all been sent away with Osâma’s army, and

the only ones now available were those used to irrigate the fields and

palmgroves. The stratagem, was curious. The Bedouins blew out their

empty water-skins (_mussucks_), and when thus buoyant and full of

air, they kicked them (as you would a foot-ball) in front of the Moslem

camels, which, affrighted at the strange sight, took to flight.

[19] The centre and wings were commanded by three sons of Mocarran, a

citizen of Medîna. These distinguished themselves on many occasions in

the Persian campaign. One of them, Nomân, was killed ten years after in

the decisive action of Nehâwend.

[20] For the royal Fifth, see _Sura_, viii. 41.

[21] There is a tradition that when Abu Bekr issued, sword in hand, to

go to Dzul Cassa, Aly caught hold of his bridle, exclaiming: ‘O Caliph,

I say to thee what the Prophet said to thee on the day of Ohod: _Put

up thy sword again and expose us not to lose thee_, for,

by the Lord! if we were to lose thee, the prop of Islam were gone.’

Whereupon Abu Bekr returned and went not forth.

But this probably refers to the expeditions shortly after sent out in

all directions from Dzul Cassa, as narrated below, and to Abu Bekr’s

return to Medîna at that time.

[22] The notion given by tradition is that these eleven columns were

despatched on their several expeditions all at once from Dzul Cassa,

in presence of Abu Bekr. This of course is possible, but it is very

improbable. The arrangements could hardly have been so speedily cut and

dry as that supposes. It is enough to know that, sooner or later, about

this time, or shortly after, these eleven expeditions started. Some of

the eleven, as given by tradition, seem hardly to have been separate

commands.

[23] Meaning, no doubt, that as governors they would have been

immediately subordinate to himself, exposed to much drudgery, and

liable to be called to account for their stewardship.

[24] For an account of this marvellous system of oral tradition, see

the Essay in the _Life of Mahomet_ on _the Sources for the

Biography_. The halo surrounding the Prophet casts something of its

brightness on the lives also of his chief Companions, whose biographies

are given by tradition in considerable detail; and from them we can

gather something of the early history incidentally.

[25] So uncertain is the chronology of this period, that Ibn Ishâc

makes the campaigns in Yemâma, Bahrein, and Yemen to be in the

twelfth year of the Hegira; whereas the received, and manifestly

correct, account, as ‘gathered from the learned of Syria,’ is that

the operations against the apostate tribes throughout Arabia were

brought practically to an end in the 11th year of the Hegira. Only one

exception is mentioned (and that somewhat obscurely) of a campaign

against Rabia, who was beaten by Khâlid. Amongst the spoils of the

expedition is mentioned the daughter of Rabia, who, as a slave-girl,

fell to the lot of Aly.

[26] _Life of Mahomet_, p. 427.

[27] _Ibid._ p. 409.

[28] We have met Thâbit before as a poet of renown and a chief of

influence, especially among the Beni Khazraj (_Ibid._ p. 449).

The strength of Khâlid’s column is nowhere mentioned, but, adverting

to the great number slain at Yemâma (although he was reinforced

meanwhile from Medîna), it could hardly have been less than twelve or

fifteen hundred, besides the 1,000 men contributed, as we shall see

immediately, by the Beni Tay.

[29] Had there been anything else in Toleiha’s teaching, there is

no reason why we should not have heard of it, as Toleiha, when he

returned to the faith, became a distinguished champion of Islam. There

may, however, have been a disinclination on his part to dwell on this

chapter of his life. Al Kindy, the Christian, speaks in his Apology

with greater respect of Moseilama’s sayings as calculated to draw

off the followers of Mahomet. But I see no evidence of this. See the

_Apology of Al Kindy_, p. 31 (Smith & Elder, 1881).

[30] A name familiar to us in the _Life of Mahomet_, see p. 323,

&c.

[31] The Beni Jadîla and Beni Ghauth.

[32] _Abu Bekr_ means ‘Father of the young camel,’ and they called

him by the nickname _Ab ul Fasîl_, ‘Father of the foal.’ Adî

answered, ‘He is not _Ab ul Fasîl_, but, if you like it, _Ab ul

Fahl_,’ ‘Father of the stallion,’ i.e. endowed with power and vigour.

In the Persian version of Tabari, the surname is by a mistake given

as _Ab ul Fadhl_, ‘the Father of Excellence,’ and is applied to

Khâlid.

[33] Okkâsha was a warrior of renown and leader of some expeditions in

the time of Mahomet.

[34] The sub-tribe of the Beni Ghatafân to which Oyeina belonged.

[35] _Kahânat_, the term used for the gift possessed by the

heathen soothsayers. The sayings ascribed to Toleiha are childish in

the extreme. For example: ‘I command that ye make a millstone with a

handle, and the Lord shall cast it on whom he pleaseth;’ and again, ‘By

the pigeons and the doves, and the hungry falcons, I swear that our

kingdom shall in a few years reach to Irâc and Syria.’

[36] For the barbarous execution of Omm Kirfa, see _Life of

Mahomet_, chapter xviii. The malcontents here gathered together

were from all the tribes against which Khâlid had now been engaged in

warlike operations--the Ghatafân, Suleim, Hawâzin, Tay, and Asad.

[37] It was a vain excuse, but was founded on the principle

that no bloodshed, treachery, sin, or excess of any sort,

_before conversion_, cast any blot on the believer; but that

_apostasy_, however, repented of, left a stigma which could never

wholly be effaced. At first the Caliph would receive no aid whatever

from any tribe or individual who had apostatised; and, though when

levies came to be needed urgently, the ban was taken off, still to the

end no apostate chief was allowed a large command, or put over more

than a hundred men.

Among the Beni Suleim was Abu Shajra, son of the famous elegiac

poetess, Al Khansa. A martial piece which he composed in reference to

an engagement at this time contains the verse:--

‘And I slaked my thirsty spear in the blood of Khâlid’s troop.’

Some years after, he visited Medîna, while Omar was distributing the

tithe among the poor Arabs around the city: ‘Give to me,’ said the

stranger, ‘for I, too, am poor and needy.’ ‘And who art thou?’ asked

Omar. Being told his name, he cried out in anger: ‘Art not thou the

same that said, _I slaked my thirsty spear_, &c.?’ and he beat

him about the head with his whip till the poet was fain to run off to

his camel. A poem complaining of this treatment has been preserved, in

which he says:--

‘Abu Hafs (Omar) grudged me of his gifts,

Although every one that shaketh even a tree getteth at least the

leaves it sheddeth.’

Such poetical fragments, in the scantiness of the materials for this

early period, give at many points reality and fulness to the story.

[38] The account as here given is from Abu Bekr’s own son. According to

other traditions, Fujâa employed the arms, &., which he got from the

Caliph, in attacking the loyal sections of his own and neighbouring

tribes, and was therefore a pure rebel. It is more probable that he

carried his marauding expeditions indiscriminately against loyal and

disloyal, wherever there was the chance of plunder. Even in this view

Fujâa deserved exemplary punishment, had it been of a less barbarous

kind.

[39] See _Life of Mahomet_, vol. i. chap. iii. Some of the

sub-tribes were great and powerful, as the Beni Hantzala, Mâlik,

Imrulcays, Dârim; and here the Beni Yerbóa.

[40] _Ibid._ ch. xxvii.

[41] The Beni Iyâdh, Namir, and Sheibân. We shall meet them again in

the Irâc campaign.

[42] Sajâh, it is said, lived quietly with her tribe after this in the

profession of Christianity, until with them she was converted to Islam.

There is a childish tale that on returning from the hasty marriage, her

army, scandalised that she had received no dower, made her go back and

ask Moseilama, who received her roughly, refusing her admittance; but,

in lieu of dower, agreed to remit two of the daily prayers imposed by

Mahomet.

By some of the historians the interview between Moseilama and Sajâh

is drawn (happily a rare case in these annals) in language of gross

indelicacy. The pruriency suggesting this, is the more gratuitous, as

we are told, almost in the same breath, that Moseilama’s tenets were

rather of an ascetic turn. His system enjoined prayer and fasting, and

prohibited (so the tradition runs) cohabitation after the birth of a

son, to be resumed only, if the child died, till the birth of another.

But our knowledge of the life and doctrines of these pretenders to

prophecy is really too scanty to warrant us in pronouncing judgment

upon them.

Belâdzori and Ibn Khaldûn are among the few who have here kept their

pages clean. Gibbon characteristically seizes on the passage.

[43] In a passage of Tabari (vol. i. p. 188) it is stated that when

Amru passed through these regions with a column to clear the roads, he

and Mâlik had words with each other. It is possible, therefore, that

Khâlid may have had a stronger case against Mâlik than appears.

[44] That is, the _Ansârs_, as opposed to the _Refugees_,

i.e. the men of Medîna, as opposed to the Coreish and men of Mecca.

[45] In the Kinânite.

[46] A full account of Mâlik and Motammim, with copious extracts

from their poetry, will be found in Nöldeke’s _Poesie der alten

Araber_, Hanover, 1864. Arab critics take Motammim as the model of

elegiac poets, both for beauty of expression and intensity of feeling.

For twenty years he had been blind of an eye, and now he told Omar that

grief for his brother’s cruel fate had brought floods of tears from

that eye, which all these years had been bereft of moisture. ‘Verily

this surpasseth all other grief!’ said Omar. ‘Yes,’ replied Motammim,

‘it would have been a different thing if my brother had died the death

of thy brother Zeid upon the field of battle.’ The noble mien and

generosity of Mâlik are painted in glowing colours. He used to kindle

a great fire by his tent all night until the day broke, in the hope of

attracting travellers to his hospitable home.

[47] The darker suspicion has been preserved by tradition, both in

prose and verse. See _C. de Perceval_, vol. iii. p. 368; and

_Kitâb al Aghâny_, vol. iii. p. 355. Leila, we are told, cast

herself at Khâlid’s feet, with hair dishevelled and unveiled face,

imploring mercy for her husband. The wretched man, noticing the

admiring look which the conqueror bestowed upon his wife, cried out,

‘Alas, alas! here is the secret of my fate!’ ‘Not so,’ said Khâlid, as

he gave the sign for beheading him; ‘but it is thine own apostasy.’

All the same, he took the wife straightway for his own. We may dismiss

the scene as unsupported by evidence. It is also inconsistent with

Abu Bekr’s treatment. His reproach of Khâlid was based not on the

impropriety of the act itself (which he could hardly have avoided had

the story been founded on fact), but on its being at variance with the

ideas of the Arabs to wed on the field of battle. The example, however,

was set by the Prophet himself, who married Safia the night after

the battle of Kheibar, and at any rate it was not long in becoming

a common practice. Following the example of Khâlid (repeated by him

again shortly after), the Moslem warriors made no delay in the field

to wed--or rather, without wedding, to treat upon the spot as servile

concubines--the wives and daughters of their fallen foes. The practice

also now arose of taking their own families with them in the field, and

marriages were celebrated there among themselves--on one occasion, we

read, on the eve of an impending battle.

As to the tenor of tradition, there are two distinct versions of the

tragedy, one giving as its cause the misconception of Khâlid’s order,

the other Mâlik’s own disloyal speech. This last, taken separately,

is inconsistent with the admitted fact that Khâlid justified himself

before Abu Bekr by the former. In the text I have endeavoured to

combine the two narratives.

Mâlik had flowing locks, and (so runs the tradition) when the skulls of

the prisoners were cast into the fire under the cooking-pots, his alone

would not burn because of the mass of hair. The story (true or false)

shows the spirit of savagery rapidly fanned by religious war.

I should perhaps mention that, though tradition is proud of Khâlid’s

heroism, he is not a special favourite with Abbasside historians, as

his son was afterwards a staunch supporter of the Omeyyads.

[48] _I.e._ Shawwâl, or two months before the close of A.H. XI. As

already explained, the dates are arbitrarily assumed. The Kâtib Wâckidi

places the battle of Yemâma in A.H. XII. (which begins March 18, A.D.

633), and even the engagement of Bozâkha in the same year; but this

would throw the campaign in Irâc altogether too late. The _cold_ which

led Khâlid to order his prisoners to be ‘wrapped,’ must have been on

the approach of winter, and corresponds with the chronology which I

have been obliged to assume on grounds admittedly vague.

[49] See _Life of Mahomet_, ch. xxxii. _Moseilama_ is a diminutive form

of the adjective _Moslem_, and is supposed by some to be in that sense

a derisive epithet. He is described as of a contemptible presence, a

dark yellow complexion and a pug nose.

[50] Some say that he was deputed by Abu Bekr. He could recite the

whole of Sura Becr (s. ii.). Khâlid had not heard of his defection, and

looked for him to come out and join his army.

[51] The tales told of him are silly. He was desired to pray, as

Mahomet had done, for rain, but it only intensified the drought; when

he prayed for a blessing on young children, it made them stammer,

become bald, &c. He established a sanctuary, perhaps in imitation of

the Kâaba, but it became a mere rendezvous for bandits. See also the

ascetic doctrines ascribed to him, and the opinion of Al Kindy, the

Apologist, _supra_, pp. 23 & 32.

[52] Above, p. 18. Ikrima was the son of Abu Jahl, the arch-enemy,

cursed in the Corân by Mahomet, and himself an inveterate opponent,

until the taking of Mecca (_Life of Mahomet_, ch. xxiv.). So

completely was it all forgotten now under the new dispensation of

equality and brotherhood, that he had one of the chief commands given

him.

[53] If Ikrima and Shorahbîl were despatched from Dzul Cassa at the

general marshalling when Khâlid marched against Toleiha, then Shorahbîl

must have had long to wait. But it is probable (as we have seen) that

the popular tradition of the simultaneous despatch of all the columns

is a fiction, and that Khâlid’s expedition preceded some of the others

by a considerable interval.

After finishing the Yemâma campaign, Shorahbîl’s original orders were

to join Amru in his proceedings against the Beni Codhâa in the north.

[54] From the expression used, it would almost seem as if Sâlim carried

the Corân on the point of his flag-staff. This was a common practice

in after times, but the Corân was not yet collected. Possibly some

portion may have been thus borne aloft by the leader, or the words may

be metaphorical or anticipative.

[55] In some accounts of the battle, Khâlid is spoken of as challenging

his enemy to single combat, and slaying, one after another, all who

came out against him. But the circumstances would hardly have admitted

of this. These single combats are the conventional drapery of all

the early battles, and need not always be taken as facts. Here they

are specially introduced to give place to an apocryphal story about

Moseilama. He came forth to answer the challenge of Khâlid, who, in

reference to the offer made by him to Mahomet, ironically asked whether

he was now prepared ‘to share the Kingdom’; whereupon Moseilama turned

aside ‘to consult his dæmon.’ Khâlid then rushed at him, and he fled.

‘Where is that now which thou didst promise us?’ cried his followers

to the prophet, but all that he could reply was to bid them fight for

their honour and their families.

[56] The twelve _Leaders_ at the Pledge of Acaba. _Life of Mahomet_,

ch. vi.

[57] It is said that 7,000 of the enemy were slain on each of

these occasions, but the statement is loose and, no doubt, vastly

exaggerated. One tradition gives the slain in the garden alone at

10,000.

[58] The greater loss among the men of Mecca and Medîna was ascribed

by themselves to their superior gallantry, but by the Bedouins to

their being raw and unused to fighting. We see already the seed of the

rivalry which afterwards broke out so fatally between the Bedouins and

the Coreish.

[59] The terms of the treaty, notwithstanding the alleged artifice

(which reads somewhat strangely) were sufficiently severe. The Beni

Hanîfa agreed to give up all their armour, their silver and their gold;

but they were allowed to retain half of their slaves, and get back half

of their own people taken prisoner. Khâlid had already captured in the

valleys and open villages so many prisoners, that he had sent 500 to

Abu Bekr as the royal Fifth, implying a total number of 2,500. But Omar

subsequently freed all slaves of Arab blood.

Selma, one of the Hanîfa chiefs, sought to dissuade his people from

surrender, saying that the winter was not overpast, and that the enemy

must retire. Being overruled, he fled and committed suicide.

[60] The sayings reported were such as these: ‘O croaking frog, thou

neither preventest the drinker, nor yet defilest the water.’ ‘We

shall have half the land and ye the other half; the Coreish are an

overbearing folk.’ But as I have said before, we have not the materials

for knowing what the real teaching of Moseilama was, nor the secret of

his influence.

[61] The Persian paraphrase of Tabari gives a highly coloured version.

Khâlid, it tells us, gave his bride the dower of a million pieces out

of the spoil, while on the marriage night the Moslem warriors lay

about hungry and in want. Verses banded about the camp to this effect

reached Omar, and put him in a towering passion. He nearly persuaded

Abu Bekr to recall Khâlid, but the Caliph, reflecting that, after so

great a victory, it would discourage the army, contented himself with a

reproachful letter. All this is evidently gross exaggeration, founded

probably on the dislike of the Abbasside historians.

[62] See the previous history of the province, _Life of Mahomet_,

ch. xxx.

[63] The mission of Alâ must have been considerably later than that

of Khâlid. We have before seen reason to believe that the various

expeditions were not, as tradition represents, despatched all at once

from Dzul Cassa.

[64] The Beni Hanîfa, Moseilama’s tribe, was a branch of the same Beni

Bekr ibn Wail, mentioned in the text, as also the Beni Temîm, who to

this day (such is the tenacity with which the Bedouins hold to their

native soil) occupy the same pasture-lands. Some details are given

regarding the chiefs who had remained tolerably loyal throughout. Thus

Cays ibn Asim, Zibricân, &c., who at first vacillated, though they kept

aloof from Sajâh, now, as Alâ drew near, came forth with the tithes

which during the anarchy had been kept in deposit, and fought upon his

side.

We are also told of a staunch believer, Thomâma, who was able to

maintain his loyalty with a party of his tribe, until Alâ appeared.

He joined the force, but came to an untimely and ignominious end. He

was presented for his bravery with the spoils taken from the person of

Hotem (to be noticed below), and, wearing them on a journey, was set

upon by the people as Hotem’s murderer and as such put to death.

[65] This is the solitary expedition since the death of Mahomet around

which tradition has gathered a halo of marvellous tales. When they

halted on that miserable night, the beasts of burden all ran off wildly

with their loads. Not one was left, and the army was near perishing

of hunger as well as thirst. In the morning, they returned from all

directions with their burdens, of their own accord. The lake is likened

to the water that flowed from the rock in the wilderness when struck by

Moses.

[66] Called _Ebnâa_. The traders from India settled (as they do

now) along the coast from the Euphrates to Aden, and so a mongrel race

sprang up.

[67] He bore the dynastic name of Mundzir, and, having been freed at

the instance of an Arab relative, embraced Islam. He had the surname

of _Gharur_ (deceiver), but said that he ought rather to have

been called _Maghrûr_ (deceived). The relations of these tribes

on the N.E. of Arabia, with Hîra and also with Persia, were close and

constant. Little more than twenty years before, the Beni Bekr had

beaten back the combined forces of Persia and Hîra. The connection

of the Arab tribes in this quarter with Persia corresponded with

that between the Syrian tribes and the Roman empire. (_Life of

Mahomet_, vol. i. p. clxxxii.)

[68] For the island Dârîn (or Dirîn) see an interesting article by Sir

H. Rawlinson, on the islands of Bahrein, _Royal As. Society’s Journal_,

vol. xii. p. 222, _et seq._ There were _five_ bishops in this province,

and ‘the insular see is always named Dirîn.’ We have here indirect

evidence of the prevalence of the Christian faith in northern Arabia,

far down the shores of the Persian Gulf.

[69] Each horseman got 6,000 pieces. The tale is told with such

extravagances as we are accustomed to only in the life of the Prophet,

_e.g._ the strait was so broad that it took a day and a night

for a ship to cross, yet not the hoof of a camel was wetted. It is

remarkable that, with few exceptions, this expedition is the only one,

after the death of Mahomet, regarding which such childish tales are

told.

[70] There is a tradition that two chiefs Zibricân and Acra obtained

from Abu Bekr a patent appointing them collectors of tithe in Bahrein,

on condition that they made themselves responsible for its loyalty.

The document was shown to Omar, who, angry apparently because Acra had

been an apostate, tore it up. Talha, who had negotiated the affair,

went to Abu Bekr and asked, ‘Art thou ruler, or is Omar?’ ‘Omar,’ he

replied, ‘but obedience is due to me.’ This (which illustrates the

great influence of Omar with the Caliph) may have referred to a part of

the Bahrein coast not under Alâ.

[71] He belonged to the Beni Shaybân, a sub-tribe of the Beni Bekr.

[72] No dates are given. But as the battle which follows was retrieved

by reinforcements from the Beni Abd al Cays, and as that tribe was only

set free by the success of Alâ, the operations in Omân must necessarily

have been later than those in Bahrein.

[73] See _Life of Mahomet_, ch. xxx.

[74] They belonged to the great families of Azd and Himyar, who

inhabited that part of the Peninsula, and had therefore both experience

and local influence.

[75] Sohâr, still a mercantile port, lies above 100 miles west of

Maskat. The bazaar of Dabâ was probably near to it.

[76] Attâb had been governor ever since Mahomet appointed him on the

capture of Mecca. The rebels were headed by Jondob of the Mudlij tribe.

Penitential verses, recited by this rebel chief on his submission,

have been preserved (_Tabari_, i. p. 212). In the paucity of

trustworthy tradition at this period, such verses are peculiarly

valuable, amplifying as they do the meagre materials at our command,

and giving fixed and certain points.

[77] According to another account of this affair, Khâlid (who had been

appointed by Mahomet collector of tithes and resident with the Beni

Zobeid in the quarter south of Mecca), attacked Amr ibn Mádekerib, and

having taken his sister prisoner, obtained the sword as her ransom. The

sword came several years afterwards into the possession of the Governor

of Kûfa, who offered to give it back to Amr; to show its marvellous

temper, Amr took it, and at one blow severed the pack on his mule’s

back in two. Then he returned it to the governor, saying that he could

not retain a sword of which he had once been despoiled. Among other

poetry is some by Amr himself:--‘The sword of the son of Dzu Cayfar

(A.D. 475) was mine; its blade was tempered in the age of Ad.

It hath a grooved blade which cleaveth helmets, and the bodies of men,

in twain.’ See _Caussin de Perceval_, vol. i. p. 117; also Mr.

C. J. Lyall’s translations from the Hamasah. _Journal As. Soc. of

Bengal_, 1877, vol. xlvi. pp. 179, _et seq._ It is curious to

remark how many Arab warriors were also poets of renown.

[78] The tradition was preserved in the name of ‘the _Villains_’

(_Akhabîth_) road, by which this part of the coast was long known.

[79] _Life of Mahomet_, chap. xxxii.

[80] Yemen was, for a considerable period in the seventh century,

governed by a Satrap as a dependency of Persia; and large numbers of

Persians then settled in the country. These were their descendants, and

also the _Ebnâa_ of mixed parentage. (_Life of Mahomet_, vol.

i., p. cxliv.)

[81] Dzul Kelâa and other semi-independent Himyar chiefs occupying the

neighbouring districts. Some of these remained loyal, and distinguished

themselves greatly in the Syrian campaigns.

[82] Feroze was a poet, as well as a statesman; and his verses

lamenting the captivity of his family, and threatening revenge, have

been preserved. (_Tabari_ i. p. 220.) Abd _Yaghûth_, or servant of

the idol of that name worshipped in the south of Arabia. See Lyall’s

translations from the Hamasah, quoted above. We hear of him afterwards,

but not much of Feroze.

[83] As usual, no date is given. But as only now he met Ikrima, who

had made a march of several weeks from Omân, after the campaign in the

East, the period must have been late in the year A.H. XI., if

not the beginning of A.H. XII. Tabari, as I have said before,

places the entire reduction of apostate Arabia within A.H. XI.

Mohâjir was brother to Omm Salma, one of the Prophet’s wives. He was

one of the malingerers who absented himself from the Tebûk campaign,

and so incurred the displeasure of Mahomet. (_Life of Mahomet_,

chap. xxviii.) But Omm Salma, one day, washing the Prophet’s head,

made mention to him of her brother, and, finding the opportunity

favourable, called him in. His excuse was accepted; and the government

of Hadhramaut was then and there conferred on him.

[84] The verses are quoted by Tabari, vol. i. p. 224. The Arabs,

and especially their poets, had the faculty of abusing one another

in the grossest manner. About the same time, lampoons were bandied

between Amr ibn Mádekerib and Farwa, a loyal chief of the Beni Murâd,

who maintained a constant check upon Amr’s proceedings. As regards

Farwa, we are told that when he first presented himself to Mahomet, he

explained how his tribe and the Beni Hamdân had an idol which each kept

alternately for a year. The contested possession of this idol led in

bygone time to the famous battle of Al Razm.

[85] The Beni Sakûn were loyal throughout the rebellion, and gave

protection to the faithful refugees from other tribes. Among others,

Moâdz ibn Jabal, deputed by Mahomet to teach the tribes of the south

the Corân and the tenets of Islam (_Life of Mahomet_, chap, xxx.),

took refuge with them, and married a lady from amongst them. He was so

enamoured of this Sakûnite wife that it used to be his constant prayer

that in the resurrection he and she might both be raised together. He

died in the plague A.H. XVIII.

[86] See the account of their brilliant cavalcade and the betrothal,

_Life of Mahomet_, chap. xxx.

[87] A thousand women were captured in the fortress. They called after

Ashâth as he passed, ‘he smelleth of burning,’ i.e. he is a recreant

traitor.

[88] Her name was Omm Farwa. Their son Mohammed was killed fighting in

the army of Musáb against Mokhtâr. Some verses by Ashâth lamenting the

catastrophe of Nojeir have been preserved by Tabari, vol. i. p. 248.

[89] She was the daughter of one Nomân, who, praising her attractions

to Mahomet, added, as the climax, that she never had had sickness of

any kind. After a private interview with her, Mahomet sent her back to

her home in the south, saying, ‘Had the Lord seen anything good in her,

it had not been thus.’

In the _Life of Mahomet_, I rejected as apocryphal this and

other accounts of the Prophet’s betrothal to certain females with

whom marriage was not consummated. In the present case, however, the

betrothal is certainly confirmed by the curious objection taken by the

army to Ikrima’s marriage on account of the inchoate relation in which

she at one time stood to the Prophet; and it is therefore possible that

other betrothals which at the time appeared to me improbable may also

be founded on fact. See _Life of Mahomet_, chap, xxii., and Ibn

Cotâba, p. 18.

It will be remembered that the widows of the Prophet, as ‘Mothers

of the Faithful,’ were prohibited by the Corân from re-marrying.

_Ibid._ p. 303.

[90] See _Life of Mahomet_, chap. xxix.

[91] ‘The days of Ignorance,’ that is, the period preceding Islam.

[92] Two such are named by Tabari, i. p. 248.

A light ransom was fixed for each Arab slave, namely seven camels and

six young ones. In the case of some tribes which had suffered most

severely (as the Beni Hanîfa, the Beni Kinda, and the people of Omân

discomfited at Dabâ), even this was remitted.

[93] _Fadak_ was a Jewish settlement north of Medîna, conquered by

Mahomet at the same time as Kheibar. Portions of both were retained by

Mahomet for the support of his household. (See _Life of Mahomet_,

pp. 394 and 548.)

[94] According to most authorities she survived her father six months;

others say only three.

[95] Some say that Abu Bekr appointed Abd al Rahman to the duty. The

uncertainty on this (to the Moslem) most important point is indicative

of the confusion which still prevailed, and the vagueness of tradition

for the period immediately following Mahomet’s death.

[96] Gibbon, chap. xlvi.

[97] Above, p. 50.

[98] By some accounts Mothanna appeared in person before Abu Bekr and

promised to engage the local tribes in carrying the attack into the

border lands of Irâc.

[99] Such are said to have been Abu Bekr’s orders; but tradition here

probably anticipates the march of events. It is very doubtful whether

he had yet the city of Hîra in view. The campaign widened, and the aims

of Khâlid became more definite as his victories led him onwards.

[100] The pre-Islamite history of these Arab races is given in the

introductory chapters to the _Life of Mahomet_, vol. i.

[101] _i.e._ ‘Irâc of the Arabs’ as distinguished from _Irâc

Ajemy_, ‘foreign’ or Persian Irâc.

[102] The mounds are, no doubt, not only the remains of embankments

but also of the clearances of silt, which (as we know in India) become

hillocks in the course of time.

[103] This, as well as the main stream, is sometimes called by our

historians _Furât_, or Euphrates; at other times by its proper

name of _Bâdacla_, and also _Al Atîck_, the ‘old’ or deserted

channel; but the streams have varied their course from age to age.

[104] The country suffers similarly in the present day at the hands of

the Turkish Government. A traveller writes regarding it: ‘From the most

wanton and disgraceful neglect, the Tigris and Euphrates, in the lower

part of their course, are breaking from their natural beds, forming

vast marshes, turning fertile lands into a wilderness,’ &c.

[105] These seem to have occupied a position similar to that of the

great _Talookdars_ in Upper India.

[106] Beyond the general outline we must not look for much trustworthy

detail at the outset of these campaigns. The narrative of them is brief

and summary, often confused and contradictory. For example, Hîra is

said by some to have submitted at the outset and agreed to pay tribute,

which is inconsistent with the course of the narrative. The summons to

Hormuz as given in the text savours too much of the set type of after

days to be above suspicion; so with the constant repetition of single

combats, without which the historians seem to think no Arab battle

complete.

There is one point of some importance. It is the call on Hormuz _to

pay tribute_. Now, tribute was permitted by Mahomet only to ‘the

people of the Book,’ that is, to Jews and Christians. No such immunity

was allowed to the heathen, who were to be fought against to the bitter

end. Zoroastrians (for such was Hormuz) should strictly have been

offered no terms _but Islam_. They had not, however, yet been

thought of, for they were altogether beyond the limits and tribes of

Arabia. Eventually, Omar ruled that having ‘a Book’ or Revelation, they

might be admitted into the category of those to be spared on payment

of tribute. But, as I have said, the summons is no doubt cast in the

conventional mould of later days.

[107] Horsemen received _three_ shares; the foot soldiers one.

This was the standing rule from the time of the Prophet. Two shares

were for the horse.

[108] The grade of Persian nobility was marked by the costliness of the

jewelled turban.

[109] No elephant had ever been seen before at Medîna, and only one at

Mecca--‘the year of the elephant’ marking the era of Abraha’s attack

(_Life of Mahomet_, p. xxvi.). The astonishment of the women

and children of Medîna was unbounded, and some inquired in childish

amazement whether it was an artificial thing, or really was a work of

nature.

[110] It is also called the battle of Kâtzima, a neighbouring town

reduced by Khâlid.

This tale of soldiers being chained together, or tied with ropes,

is commonly told both of Persian and Roman armies. How far it is

founded on fact it is difficult to say. We must ever remember that the

materials for our story are all _one-sided_, and that there is

much ignorance of their enemies displayed by the annalists, as well as

much contemptuous fiction regarding them.

[111] It will be more convenient hereafter (dropping the Occidental

forms of Ctesiphon and Seleucia) to speak of the Persian capital by its

Arabic name, _Medâin_.

[112] Cârin, they say, was the last noble of the _first_ rank who

took the field against the Mussulmans. The slain are put at 30,000,

besides those drowned in the canal. Such numbers, always loose, are

especially so in the traditions of this early period. Among the

prisoners was a Christian, father of the famous jurisconsult Abul Hasan

of Bussora (d. A.H. 110). Also Mâckia, afterwards the freedman

of Othmân, and Abu Ziâd, freedman of Moghîra.

[113] Khâlid’s speech is quoted by Al Kindy the Christian Apologist

(Smith and Elder), p. 33.

[114] The _iddat_ (or interval prescribed between divorce and

re-marriage, or before the cohabitation of a new master with his

slave-girl) is not observed in respect of women taken captive on the

field of battle. I can find no authority on the subject, but am told

by those versed in the law that the only exception is that of women

with child in which event cohabitation would be unlawful till after

delivery. In all other cases, in conformity with the precedent of the

Prophet’s marriage with Safia at Kheibar, the captives, whether maid or

matron, are lawful to the captors’ embrace upon the spot (_Life of

Mahomet_, p. 391).

[115] Tabari tells us that every month it was the turn of a new prince

to rule as minister, and this was Bahmân’s month.

[116] The slain are given at the fabulous figure of 70,000. The

decapitation of the captives went on for a night and a day (so we are

told), and then they scoured the country for more. Cacâa, one of the

Arab captains, told Khâlid that ‘the Lord had forbidden the earth to

allow human blood to flow upon its face more than the length of a man’s

dress,’ and that it never would run in a stream until water was turned

on. Blood, as we know, soon thickens and curdles of itself.

There is, presumably, great exaggeration in the story, and I should

willingly have put down the whole as a fiction growing out of the

name of the river; but the narrative unfortunately is in keeping

with the bloodthirstiness of the Arab crusaders, and specially with

the character of ‘the Sword of the Lord.’ The tradition about the

flour-mills comes from Moghîra, through one of Tabari’s standing string

of traditional authorities.

[117] She bore him children, or the circumstance would probably have

been too common to merit a place in tradition. Abu Bekr was so charmed

with his stalwart mien that he burst forth in a martial couplet in the

envoy’s praise.

[118] For the history of Hîra up to this time, see _Life of

Mahomet_, vol. i. introd. chap. iii. The Lakhmite dynasty sprang

from the _southern_ branch of the Arabs, and, both on this account

and for the reasons stated in the text, their influence did not

penetrate deeply into the peninsula.

[119] Called also Manîshia. It never recovered the calamity; at any

rate we do not hear of it again.

[120] The escapes were opened perhaps as well to flood the country and

impede the enemy’s progress, as to lay the navigating channel dry.

These channels have greatly altered, so that attempt at identification

would be fruitless.

[121] The palace of Khawarnac was built 200 years before, by Nomân I.,

for the reception of his pupil Bahrâm Gour, heir-apparent to the throne

of Persia. Sinnimâr was the architect. There was a stone, so the story

runs, which, if removed, the whole building would fall. The secret

was known to Sinnimâr alone; and Nomân dashed him from the top, that

the secret might perish with him. (_Life of Mahomet_, vol. i. p.

clxxi.)

[122] The treaty is given as follows:--‘This is the Treaty of Khâlid

with the son of Adi, Amr son of Abd al Masîh, and Iyâs ibn Cabîsa,

empowered in that behalf by the citizens of Hîra. They shall pay, year

by year, 190,000 dirhems, to be levied on clergy and laity, saving

mendicants who have abjured the world. The Mussulmans on their side

shall protect the city, otherwise there will be no obligation to pay

the tribute. If the city be disloyal in word or deed, the treaty shall

be void.’ The terms are given alike in two independent traditions; but

the rising, which shortly after swept over the land, cancelled it.

[123] Showeil was an old dotard. When Kerâmat said to him, ‘What carest

thou for an old creature like me?’ he replied, ‘I am not my mother’s

son if I take less for thee than a thousand dirhems.’ She feigned to

think it much, but paid it down. When she had gone, his companions

laughed at him for asking such a trifling sum for so distinguished a

captive. He went to Khâlid: ‘I meant,’ he said, ‘to ask the highest

figure that there was; but now they tell me that numbers go beyond a

thousand, and that I did not ask enough. Give me, therefore, a fitting

ransom.’ Khâlid said: ‘Thou purposedst one thing, my friend, and

the Lord purposed another. I judge by what appeareth, and leave thy

purposes alone.’ I give the story as I find it, absurd as it appears,

for the lady is said to have been fourscore years of age. The romance

of early love, at any rate, was soon changed into a more sordid

passion. The tale, though surrounded by marvels (_e.g._ Mahomet’s

foretelling the conquest of Hîra), is, no doubt, founded on some slight

substratum of fact. The lady’s age must be exaggerated as well as the

simplicity of Showeil, since she was the daughter of Abd al Masîh who

headed the deputation from the city.

[124] Tradition gives with considerable zest a somewhat coarse and

childish conversation between Khâlid and the aged Abd al Masîh (called

Ibn Backîla, ‘son of the bean-stalk,’ from his green dress), who headed

the deputation. ‘Whence comest thou?’ asked the conqueror. ‘From my

mother’s womb.’ ‘And where art thou now?’ ‘In my clothes,’ and so on.

Asked what was the most wonderful thing he had ever seen, he said,

‘The road from Hîra to Damascus, which was lined in my early days

with villages all along, so that a woman could travel on it alone,

taking with her a single cake; but that time hath long passed by.’ His

attendant carried a little bag containing a quick poison, which his

master was prepared to swallow if any indignity had been shown him.

Khâlid took and swallowed it, saying that no soul could die before its

time. As no ill effect followed, the chief was lost in amazement, and

declared that Khâlid must be irresistible. Marvellous tales of this

sort are, however, very rare now. Some touching verses are recorded as

sung by Ibn Backîla on the fall of Hîra. Here is a specimen:--

Now that the Princes of the house of Mundzir are gone, shall I ever

again behold the royal herd of camels returning at eve from the

pastures of Khawarnac and Sedîr?

Now that the horsemen of Nomân are passed away, shall I ever again

feed the young she-camel on the pastures between Mecca and Hafîr?

Like a flock of goats on a stormy day, we are scattered by the Beni

Maád (the invading Moslems), even as pieces of camels slaughtered

for the feast.

Heretofore our homes were sacred, and we like the teats of a

well-filled udder,

Yielding tribute at the appointed times to the Chosroes, and

imposts in cattle and gold.

Alas! even so is the changeful wheel (bucket) of the well of

fortune. Now the day brightens with joy and gladness, and now it

is dark with sorrow and grief.

Masûdi speaks of the Ibâdites (the Christian aborigines of Hîra) as

still in his time inhabiting this neighbourhood.

[125] For the field of Mûta, where Khâlid rallied the fragments of the

Moslem army broken by the Roman legions, see _Life of Mahomet_,

chap. xxiii.

[126] The ‘Service of Victory’ consisted of eight continuous Rakâats,

or series of prostrations, with the appointed Sura of Victory.

In this first campaign there is no mention of any Moslems killed. There

were, no doubt, casualties among the rank and file of the Bedouin

tribes, but these are taken little account of. If any ‘Companion,’ or

leader of eminence, had been slain, the fact would, no doubt, have been

mentioned. We must remember that most of the soldiers from Medîna had

returned to their homes from Yemâma, so that there may not have been

many Companions present with Khâlid at this time.

With reference to Khâlid’s speech, I should notice that it was the

tendency of the Kûfa and Bussora schools to magnify the difficulties of

the conquest of Irâc in their own interest, as enhancing their claims

upon the revenues of the _Sawâd_, or surrounding province. In this

sense there is a fragment from the Arab warrior Amr ibn Cacâa:--

The Lord water the ground where lie buried the heroes of Irâc

Upon the dusty plain and beneath the sandy mounds!

And then he mentions in verse the various fields in which they had

fallen in this first campaign from Hafîr to the siege of Hîra.

[127] These treaties were mostly abrogated by the rebellion that

shortly after swept over the land. But some of the chieftains remained

steadfast, as Salûba ibn Nestûba, ‘the lord of Coss Nâtick.’ His treaty

is given verbatim by Tabari, with the witnesses, &c., copied, probably,

from the original. He had to pay a tribute of 10,000 dirhems, to be

contributed rateably by his people according to each man’s means,

besides a tax of four dirhems per head (apparently a Persian tax, as it

is called _harazat Chosra_).

The terms of these treaties were made by Khâlid, _with the consent

and approval of the army_, showing how Khâlid recognised the

dominancy of the democratic element.

[128] The terms of the discharge are given by Tabari, who also mentions

nine of the Moslem chiefs employed to attest the receipts.

[129] One of the great channels drawn above Babylon from the Euphrates,

which flows across the peninsula and falls into the Tigris.

[130] P. 68.

[131] His name was Shîrazâd, for we come now constantly on

_Persian_ names. The story is that the Moslems were told to shoot

at the _eyes_ of the garrison. And so a thousand of the enemy had

their eyes transfixed; whence the siege was called ‘The action of the

Eyes.’ I give the tradition as I find it--not pretending to offer an

explanation--excepting that the same word stands for _eyes_ and

_fountains_.

[132] Still called by that name (pl. Felâlij), meaning the district

about Anbâr irrigated by channels from the Euphrates. The army is said

to have passed by the plain of _Kerbala_, which, however, is a

good deal south of the position I assign to Ain Tamar (‘The Fountain of

Date-palms’).

[133] See above, p. 31. The Beni Taghlib, it will be remembered,

retired into Mesopotamia with Sajâh after her marriage with Moseilama.

[134] The Companion was Omeir. He had been one of the refugees to

Abyssinia in the persecution of the Coreish, and was therefore a very

early convert. A citizen (Ansâr) was also buried here; it is not

distinctly stated, but I infer, that he too was killed in the action.

This is the first mention of anyone killed on the Moslem side in the

Irâc campaign, though, as said before, loss in the rank and file of the

Bedouin levies was not of such importance as necessarily to require

distinct notice.

[135] Another of these youths was Hemrân, who became the Mowla, or

freedman, of Othman. When surprised in their cloister, they declared

themselves to be ‘hostages,’ perhaps strangers from a distance,

detained to complete their education there.

[136] Welîd was the son of that Ocba who had been put to death by

Mahomet after the battle of Bedr (_Life of Mahomet_, p. 239). We

shall hear more of him by and by.

[137] The distance must have been over 300 miles, besides the detour

rendered necessary by the intervening desert (the _Nefûd_ of red

sand, see Lady Blount’s _Pilgrimage to Nejd_); and must have

taken, C. de Perceval says, not less than ten days; with any other than

Khâlid, I should have said a good deal more.

[138] Jabala VI. See _Life of Mahomet_, vol. i. p. clxxxix.

[139] So the ordinary narrative. But there is another account that

Okeidar was sent a prisoner to Medîna; and being subsequently released

by Omar, settled near Ain Tamar, at a place which, in memory of his

former home, he named _Dûma_. The name _may_ have given rise to the

tradition; though, on the other hand, the execution of Okeidar is in

keeping with Khâlid’s sanguinary character. For his first encounter

with Khâlid, see _Life of Mahomet_, p. 458.

[140] Acra was chief of the Beni Temîm, old allies of the Beni Kelb,

who otherwise would have shared the common fate.

[141] The demonstration was probably forced. The citizens, we are told,

murmured secretly,--‘We thought that they had passed by, like other

Arab raiders; their return is the breaking out of a fresh calamity;’

and so, before long, they found it.

[142] The girl’s name was Sahba. Aly had recently received into his

harem another maiden taken captive at Yemâma; being of the Beni

Hanifa, the son, Mohammed, whom she bore to him, was called _the

Hanifite_. Thus, though he sat inactive at home, Aly took his full

share of the captive ladies. He also married in this year Omâma, a

granddaughter of the Prophet (being a child of Abul Aâs and Zeinab) and

niece of his deceased wife Fâtima.

I have noticed these expeditions very briefly, as the similarity of

detail becomes tedious. The Persian generals Zermihr and Rozaba, were

attacked by Cacâa and slain before they could form a junction with the

Beni Taghlib, but the fugitives joined the Bedouin camp at Modeya in

the desert. Thereupon, Khâlid organised three parties to converge at a

set time by night upon the Arab encampment, which was surprised, and

left covered with the dead, ‘like a field of slaughtered sheep.’ The

chief, Hodzeil, escaped.

Among the slain were two Bedouin chiefs who, having embraced Islam,

held an amnesty from the Caliph. Omar took the occasion again to blame

Khâlid for his indiscriminating vengeance; but Abu Bekr, as before,

justified him; ‘for those,’ he said, ‘who dwell in the encampment of

an enemy must take their chance with him.’ As, however, they were both

said to have called aloud the Moslem shibboleth, their families were

set free and taken care of, and blood-money paid. Omar treasured up

these things against Khâlid.

The similar stratagem of a convergent night attack was repeatedly

resorted to at Thinia, Zomeil, and Bishr, not a soul escaping the sword

but the women and children. Horcus, a famous chief of the desert, was

surprised and slain while drinking his last draught of wine with his

daughters, who were carried away captive. The subject is a favourite

one, and the bacchanalian verses sung by Horcus in his last cups, with

a swan-like anticipation of impending fate, are assigned to several

different occasions.

[143] Ramadhan fell in December, A.D. 633.

[144] No details are given of this great battle, excepting the fabulous

number of 100,000 slain.

[145] In the troublous times that followed, almost all the country rose

and committed acts of disloyalty which, with one or two exceptions,

cancelled the treaties and engagements now entered into by Khâlid with

the Dihcâns.

[146] According to some traditions, Abu Bekr deputed Omar to preside at

the pilgrimage this year. But the general opinion is that Abu Bekr did

so himself, leaving Othmân during his absence in charge of Medîna. This

is the more likely, as, owing to the troubled state of the peninsula,

he had been unable to go on pilgrimage the previous year.

[147] See above, p. 53.

[148] Near to Castal (which C. de Perceval makes Callirhoe) and towards

Abila but probably not so far north; the advance on Syria being made

(as always) on the coast of the Dead Sea.

[149] Dzul Kelâa, with his immediate clan, remained firm in the

rebellion of Yemen, and aided Ikrima in its suppression: see above, p.

54. Ikrima’s column was called ‘the brigade of substitutes,’ because

on his return from the long campaign in the south, his soldiers

were allowed furlough to their homes, on condition of their giving

substitutes for the new expedition in the north.

[150] Amru is said to have had the promise of the command over the

tribes of Odzra and Sád-Hodzeim (branches of the Beni Codhâa) from

Mahomet when he deputed him to Omân, and Abu Bekr fulfilled the

promise. His present mission must have been subsequent to the affair

at Dûma, as Welîd, on his return to Medîna from Irâc, was sent to help

Iyâdh at Dûma. This further appears from the notice that Welîd, on

joining the Syrian force, left as his _locum tenens_ over the Beni

Codhâa, Imral Cays ‘from Dûma’; implying that Dûma was by this time a

Mahometan possession.

[151] Marj al Soffar is to the north of the Yermûk on the road to

Damascus, and is frequently mentioned in the subsequent campaign. It

was not far from Jâbia in the Jaulân (Gaulonitis) which became the

grand rendezvous for the Moslem armies, and the point of departure both

for northern Syria and Palestine. The journey from Medîna to Syria was

always, as now, by the country to the east of the Dead Sea, very much

what is the present pilgrim route from Damascus to Mecca.

Some accounts say that Khâlid himself was killed in the engagement,

which, according to the wont of Saracen defeats, is slurred over

with a few unsatisfactory and garbled words. According to other

traditions, Khâlid was degraded because, in returning from Yemen, he

delayed to swear allegiance to Abu Bekr, and abused Aly and Othmân for

allowing the government to pass out of the house of Abd Menâf. This is

altogether improbable. The account in the text is the received one and

also the most consistent. But the dates are all uncertain, for none are

reliable till after the battle of Ajnadein.

[152] Shorahbîl had fought under the great Khâlid at Yemâma, and

thence accompanied him to Irâc. Deputed at this crisis to Medîna with

despatches or booty, he there obtained this command.

[153] The Scriptural expressions of ‘the Promised Land,’ ‘the Land of

Blessing,’ &c., are applied in the Corân to Palestine; and it remained

long the most coveted destination of the Bedouin levies.

[154] The strength of the four columns is usually given as 27,000, some

authorities adding 3,000 rallied from Khâlid’s force, and some not.

Tradition represents Abu Bekr as sending them forth each to reduce a

given district in Syria--Abu Obeida, Hims; Yezîd, Damascus; Shorahbîl,

the Jordan; Amru, Palestine. A palpable anticipation. Abu Bekr’s vision

was yet bounded by the Roman army, and the issue doubtful.

[155] Ar, or Rabbah of Moab.

[156] The Dothan of Joseph’s story is placed by Robinson north of

Nablûs, near the plain of Megiddo. If this be the same, Yezîd must

have penetrated into the centre of Palestine, which at this early

period of the campaign is not likely. But the whole account is very

brief and confused. It seems, also, improbable that Abu Obeida should

have advanced quite so far as Jâbia, while as yet the Roman battalions

dominated the country north of the Yermûk.

[157] The names of the Roman commanders are given as Jâreja (George?),

Cayear ibn Nestûs, Darâckis, and Tadzâric (Theodoric). Tradition

pretends that Heraclius, half persuaded of the truth of Islam, was

desirous to cede to the Moslems the plain of Syria up to the mountains

of Asia Minor, but was hindered by the perversity of his grandees.

[158] The way out, however, could have been only partially closed, for

reinforcements reached the Romans without hindrance. The ravine was

probably passable at some points, though, on the whole, a sufficient

defence against the Arabs.

[159] The country is well described by Laurence Oliphant in his _Land

of Gilead_, and the picture at p. 87 gives an admirable idea of the

gorge surrounding our battle-field. ‘The Yermûk,’ he says, ‘at this

point is just sinking below the level of the plain through which it has

been meandering, and in the course of the next mile plunges down, a

series of cascades, into the stupendous gorges through which it winds,

until it ultimately falls into the Jordan below Gadara.’ The grand old

military road, still bearing traces of wheeled carriages, bifurcates

five and twenty miles south of Damascus. The right branch leads S.W.

to Palestine, crossing the Yermûk at Gadara; the other continues to

run south towards Jerash and Bostra, and so onward till it is lost

in the Hajj or pilgrim-route into Arabia. The latter was the road

always traversed by the Saracen armies as they marched into Syria and

Palestine; and I assume that the battle was fought at a point some 30

miles east of Gadara where this road crosses the Yermûk. The same road

northward leads to Jâbia (Tell Jâbieh); and Jâbieh became the grand

base of operations both for Syria and for Palestine; for Palestine was

never approached from Arabia but by this circuitous route. The Arabs,

we are told, do not use the Roman road, because probably it is in so

rugged and ruinous a condition. But they always use the bridges when

passable; and Mr. Oliphant tells us of an ‘old Roman bridge of nine

arches, one of which has fallen and has not been repaired,’ over the

Yermûk in this vicinity, p. 87. The researches now being prosecuted

to the east of the Jordan may throw farther light on this great

battle-field, the site of which it may be possible yet to identify.

[160] Some authorities represent the transfer as a punishment for the

surreptitious visit to Mecca; but this is at variance with the terms

of the order, as well as opposed to the whole tenor of Abu Bekr’s

forbearing treatment of Khâlid.

[161] The numbers of Khâlid’s column are variously stated at 9,000 and

6,000; and again as low as 800, 600, and 500. But the smaller numbers

are probably intended to indicate only that part of his force which

formed the flying column in his adventurous march across the desert:

the rest, I assume, followed more leisurely and by an easier route. In

point of fact, 6,000 returned the following year to Irâc, though they

had been thinned by the Syrian campaign.

Some put the march of Khâlid a month earlier. Ibn Ishâc says that

before leaving, Khâlid despatched the sick and infirm, with the women

and children, to Medîna, with the last consignment of royal prize, as

if he apprehended insecurity during his absence.

[162] The great sea of red sand has been spiritedly described by Lady

Anne Blount in her _Pilgrimage to Nejd_; her route (reversed) was

the same as Khâlid’s, from Irâc as far as Corâcar, only her circuit led

her farther south to Hâil, and nearer the mountain range of Ajâ and

Selma.

[163] Such is the received account of this extraordinary march, the

memory of which is also preserved in contemporary verse. Ibn Ishâc

speaks of _twenty_ camels, which would have gone but a little way.

Other accounts give the number of camels at so many per hundred lances,

without mentioning the strength of the column. As before explained,

Khâlid probably took the perilous route with only the lighter part

of his force, leaving the bulky and heavy portion to follow by the

ordinary road, along the Wady Sirhân, after he had cleared the Bostra

approach. The lips of the camels were slit or cut off (according to

other accounts bound up) to prevent their ruminating and the consequent

digestion and assimilation of the water in their stomachs.

[164] They emerged at Suwâ near Tadmor, and forthwith fell upon the

Beni Bahra, a Christian tribe, a portion of which was engaged in the

defence of Dûma the year before. Here again we have the bacchanalian

death-song of Horcûs mentioned before. We must receive the account

of Khâlid’s circuit even after the passage of the desert, with some

reserve. He is said to have plundered Cariatein and Huwarein on the way

from Tadmor; to have made terms with the Beni Codhâa at Cussum; then to

have passed over the ‘Mount of the Eagle’ (so called from his halting

on it with the Prophet’s black flag), within sight of Damascus; to

have plundered Marj Râhat, and a convent in the _Ghûta_ or plain

of Damascus, killing the men and taking the females prisoners; and so

on to Bostra, which, after some opposition, came to terms. If this be

all true, he may have at Bostra formed a junction with the body of his

column left behind at Corâcar. But it is all very vague, and with a

dash of the marvellous.

Ibn Ishâc gives a somewhat different account. He mixes up former

victories (_e.g._ the capture of the forty Christian youths, of

Aly’s slave-girl, &c.) with this campaign; and he makes the storming

of Bostra to follow the junction with Abu Obeida. I find no authority

whatever for the romance of the taking of Bostra as given by Ockley and

followed by Gibbon.

[165] In the silence of Byzantine chroniclers we must make the best of

the figures. 80,000 were ‘prisoners,’ either simply so or in chains;

40,000 were ‘chained together to fight to the death;’ 40,000 were ‘tied

by their turbans;’ and 80,000 free and unencumbered. In the Armenian

general _Bahân_ we recognise the Βάαν of Theophanes; a rare (one

might say a unique) coincidence.

[166] The imagination of the crusading army was inflamed by tales and

visions of the dying soldiers each tended by two black-eyed girls of

Paradise, who, wiping the sweat and dust of battle from the face of

their spouse, welcomed and clasped him in their fond embrace.

[167] It is doubtful whether Abu Bekr’s commission to Khâlid on his

transfer did not at the same time nominate him to the supreme command

of the Syrian forces. Ibn Khaldûn reads so; and likewise the tradition

that Omar, in eventually deposing him, appointed Abu Obeida similarly

to the supreme command. If so, Khâlid may have chosen not to excite

jealousy by assuming the supremacy at once, but rather to have obtained

it by consent. But our information is, at this early period, vague and

incomplete.

[168] The tale is full of childish matter. The following is an outline

from which the reader may draw his own conclusion. When the two armies

were drawn up for battle, Jâreja, riding forth from the Roman ranks,

called out to Khâlid as if challenging him to single combat. They drew

so near to one another, midway between the two armies, that their

horses’ necks touched. Having pledged their word to each other, a

conversation ensued. Jâreja asked Khâlid why he was called the ‘Sword

of God,’ and whether a sword had really been sent down to him from

heaven. Khâlid smiled, and expounded to him the basis and practice of

Islam. The ingenuous Roman, convinced, forthwith reversed his shield;

whereupon Khâlid, leading him away to his tent, sprinkled clean

water upon him and taught him to pray,--Jâreja following him, with

the prescribed prostrations and words, in two Rakáats. Meanwhile his

followers, supposing that he had attacked Khâlid and been decoyed away

by him, advanced rapidly on the Moslem line, which at first gave way,

and both sides became promiscuously engaged. Then Khâlid, with Jâreja

now upon his side, issued forth and at the head of their troops charged

the Romans and drove them back; Jâreja fought by the side of Khâlid all

day long, and in the evening was slain, dying a faithful martyr, though

he had prayed but once. The tale is probably founded on fact, and

framed so as to cover the defection of some Roman general--perhaps a

Bedouin,--who, by previous arrangement, came over to Khâlid on the day

of battle, with a following, perhaps, of Syrians from the Roman camp.

_Jâreja_ may be the Arab rendering here for George.

[169] Battalion or Kardûs. The number of battalions now formed is

variously given at from thirty to forty. The leader of each is named;

but probably tradition has merely selected the most likely names, for

in other respects there is a great want of detail in the narrative.

[170] The person performing this duty was called _Al Cass_, the

Declaimer. The following is a specimen of the address by which Abu

Sofiân stirred up each battalion. ‘Lord! these be the champions of

Arabia, the defenders of the Faith. Those yonder are the champions of

Rome, the defenders of Idolatry. O Lord! this is a day to be held in

remembrance among Thy great days. Wherefore send down help upon Thy

servants and succour them.’

[171] Dhirâr is a favourite hero with the pseudo-Wackidy and other

romancers, who represent him as performing the most marvellous feats in

the field. Ikrima’s war-song was:--

A noble maid, both fair and tender,

Knows that her knight can well defend her.

[172] Abu Sofiân himself lost an eye; it was pierced by an arrow, which

was with difficulty withdrawn. There is a foolish tale that Abdallah,

son of Zobeir, then a boy, overheard Abu Sofiân, who, with a company

of the Coreish, stood upon a knoll, applauding the Romans when they

advanced, and crying, ‘Out upon you,’ when they fell back, as if siding

with them. He ran and told his father, who laughed, saying, ‘It is mere

spite, for we are a deal better than the Romans.’ This is a manifest

anti-Omeyyad tale, for tradition is almost unanimous that Abu Sofiân,

notwithstanding his age, distinguished himself that day by his valour

and his ardour in stirring up the troops (_Ibn Khaldûn_, p. 85);

and indeed it would have been altogether against his interest to have

done otherwise.

[173] The disaster, making every allowance for exaggeration, must have

been appalling. We are told that there were driven over the precipice

80,000 ‘chained’ and 40,000 free soldiers, besides those that perished

by the sword.

[174] The order given by Omar is couched in terms which would appear to

imply that Khâlid was in supreme command in Syria, from which command

he was now deposed, and Abu Obeida substituted in his room. This is

not consistent with the previous narrative. It is possible, indeed,

to construe the order as deposing Khâlid simply from his command over

his own Irâc contingent, and transferring it to Abu Obeida. But it

is certain that Abu Obeida from this time became in permanence the

Ameer, or governor-general and commander-in-chief of Syria. See _Ibn

Khaldûn_, p. 86, and previous note p. 106.

[175] The date is fixed by that of Abu Bekr’s death (August 22);

_twenty days_ after which we are told that the battle was fought.

But the messenger bringing the news of the Caliph’s death could hardly

have taken more than half that time for so urgent a journey. We may

safely, therefore, place the action about the end of August (Jumâd

II.); or, rather, following other traditions, early in Rajab, that is,

the beginning of September.

[176] The new king is called otherwise Shahrîzân and Shahrîzâz, son of

Ardshîr. His commander is called Hormuz _Jâdzoweih_.

[177] The poet Farazdac (who flourished shortly after), enumerating the

various families of the Beni Bekr ibn Wâil, when he comes to the clan

of Mothanna, describes him as ‘the hero who slew the elephant at the

battle of Babylon.’ So also Abda, a Bedouin poet, who, being in search

of his mistress, chanced to be present as a wayfarer at the battle,

makes a similar reference to the slaughter of the elephant.

[178] The delay may have been occasioned by Abu Bekr’s sickness, or the

proposal to employ the apostate Arabs in the campaign may have been

difficult to answer.

[179] The Council House (Dar ul Nadwâ) built by Cossaí. _Life of

Mahomet_, Introduction.

[180] From this account it would appear that Abu Bekr did not perform

the full pilgrimage to Mina and Arafât. Some authorities make Omar to

preside at this pilgrimage, others Abd al Rahmân. Possibly Abu Bekr

performed only the Omra or Lesser Pilgrimage (_Ibid._ p. xii.),

and left Omar to fulfil the other rites.

There is a curious incident quoted by an early writer as an authority

to prove that Abu Bekr was himself present. Some one bit the ear of a

man at the pilgrimage in play. Abu Bekr sent the case to Omar as judge,

and he summoned a surgeon. Thereupon Abu Bekr recited, as in point, a

story of the Prophet, who, having made the gift of a slave to his aunt,

bade her not to bring him up as a surgeon, lest in the discharge of

his profession he should be subject to reprisals for injuries done in

surgical operations.

[181] That is, the year in which the Viceroy of Yemen besieged Mecca.

He had in his train an elephant; and the year, A.D. 570, is

therefore called ‘the year of the Elephant.’ _Ibid._ p. xxvi.

[182] There is a tradition that Abu Bekr’s illness was owing to poison,

given to him and to Attâb and another, which, being a slow but deadly

drug, did not take effect till a year after. No details are given; the

tale is evidently apocryphal, and based on the desire (common in those

early days) to give to Abu Bekr the honour of martyrdom.

[183] Meaning the Divine physician.

[184] The tradition proceeds: Abu Bekr answered, ‘The Lord bless thee,

Othmân! If I had not chosen Omar, then I had not passed thee over; and

I know not whether Omar will accept the office. As for myself, I could

wish that I had never borne the burden of the Caliphate, but had been

of those who departed this life in times that are past.’

This would imply that Abu Bekr had thought of Othmân as his successor

in default of Omar. The conversation, however, is professedly secret

and confidential. It rests solely on the authority of Othmân himself,

and we need not give too much heed to it.

[185] It is not stated on what day this occurred. It may have been only

a day or two before his death; for his interview with Mothanna shows

that even on the last day of his life, he was able to gather up his

strength.

The ordinance ran in these words: ‘In the name of the Lord most

Merciful! This is the covenant of Abu Bekr, son of Abu Cohâfa, with the

Moslems:’ (here he swooned away)--‘I have appointed, as my Successor

over you, Omar, son of Khattâb. I have not in anywise spared myself in

this matter; but have striven to the utmost to do the best for you.’

Ibn Khaldûn adds: ‘I know that he will do judgment and justice amongst

you; but if he commit tyranny or injustice, verily the future is hidden

from mine eyes.’

Asma had been the wife of Jáfar; and again, after Abu Bekr’s death,

became one of Aly’s numerous wives. The Arab women still tattoo their

breasts and arms with elaborate and beautiful designs.

The reader will remark the freedom with which women of the highest rank

appeared in public even at this period, their habits partaking still of

the freedom of the desert. But this was not long to last.

[186] Sura, v. 18. Some make this to have been said in reply to Ayesha,

who had been repeating the few lines just given as recited by Abu Bekr

himself.

[187] The prayer is somewhat similar to the last words of Mahomet. See

_Life of Mahomet_, p. 509.

[188] The 21st Jumâd II. He reigned two years, three months, and ten

days. He died on the same day of the week (Monday) as Mahomet, and at

the same age, 63 lunar years.

[189] Abu Bekr told Asma that he wished her alone to wash his body and

lay it out. On her replying that her strength was not equal to the

task, he said that she might ask Abd al Rahmân to help her. He desired

to be buried in the same two garments he had on, with a new piece over

them; and when those around objected, he made use of the words in the

text.

[190] It was opposite the house of Othmân, which adjoined the

apartments of Ayesha and the other widows of Mahomet. The cortège would

thus pass across the open court of the mosque. The grave was dug after

the same fashion as Mahomet’s (_Life_, p. 517). Talha, and Abd al

Rahmân the Caliph’s son, were the two who descended to adjust the body

in the grave.

A curious incident illustrates the rude manners of the time. When her

father died, Ayesha, with her sister Omm Farwa (Asháth’s wife), and

a party of female friends, began to wail. Omar forbade it, as a work

of Satan, but they persisted. Omar, on this, ordered Hishâm to bring

forth Omm Farwa. Ayesha screamed and said, ‘Who is Omar? I forbid thee

my house.’ But Omm Farwa was brought forth and beaten with a whip, on

which the mourning women dispersed. The story is probably exaggerated;

but that it should have been preserved at all is a proof of the rough

notions prevalent as to the treatment of ladies of rank and birth at

this early period.

[191] Some say 8,000 dirhems; others, that he had no fixed allowance,

but took only what sufficed for the maintenance of his family. In

support of the latter statement, a tradition is given that his wife,

having a longing for some sweetmeats, saved up a little money for the

purpose. Abu Bekr finding it out, took the whole sum and put it back

into the treasury, as more than absolutely needed for the maintenance

of his household. Many of these traditions are evidently exaggerated

with the view of enhancing the hardness and thrift of Abu Bekr’s life,

and his conscientious use of the public money, in contrast with the

luxury and extravagance of later Caliphs. Thus we are told that at his

death he desired that whatever property was found in his house should

be sent to Omar, in repayment of what he had received; there was only

a camel, a cutler-slave, and a carpet worth five dirhems. They were

sent to Omar with the deceased Caliph’s message, whereat Omar wept,

but carried out the request to the letter. All these stories, the

feeding and milking of the goats, engaging in merchandise, &c., must be

received dubiously.

[192] Mines were worked in the lands of the Beni Suleim.

[193] In the general distribution, each soul received ten dirhems the

first year, and twenty the second, besides what was spent in the public

service. Warm clothing was purchased from the Bedouin tribes, and

distributed among the destitute in the winter. In all, they estimate

that 200,000 dirhems (say 10,000_l._) were received in Abu Bekr’s

reign--but a poor forecast of what was to come! A woman was employed to

weigh the treasure as it came in.

[194] The three things are variously related: _e.g._ that he did

not himself go forth with the expeditions against the apostate tribes;

others, of weak authority, relate chiefly to the succession to the

Caliphate, and some are clearly of an Alyite stamp.

[195] It does not, however, by any means follow that he had none.

Slave-girls, as part of the harem, are rarely mentioned, unless one

happened to bear issue to her master, when she became free, as his

_Omm walad_.

[196] It seems he had a presentiment it would be a girl, for he said

to Ayesha: ‘Thy brothers and _sisters_ must all share equally.’

‘What sisters?’ she asked in surprise; ‘there is only Asma.’ ‘The

one,’ he answered, ‘that Habîba bint Khârija is big with.’ One of his

sons, Abdallah, was only three years old at his death; and his mother,

Coteila, was probably alive when he died. When Omm Rumân, Ayesha’s

mother, died, is nowhere stated.

[197] The old blind man, hearing a commotion at Mecca, asked what it

might be, and being told that his son had died--‘Alas!’ he cried,

‘glory hath departed from us; and who succeedeth him?’ They answered,

Omar. ‘It is well,’ he replied; ‘for he was his worthy fellow.’ As the

Caliph’s father, he inherited a sixth part of his son’s estate.

[198] [Arabic]

[199] This is almost the only mention made of Aly during Abu Bekr’s

Caliphate, excepting when he gives advice in the Caliph’s Council,

marries a new wife, or purchases some attractive bond-maid. In such a

self-indulgent life, he was becoming portly and inactive.

[200] _I.e._ of the Muhâjerîn or Ansâr; that is, the Coreish, on

the one hand, and the natives of Medîna on the other.

[201] The following is an outline of the narrative, as given by the

Arab historians. On Shahrîrân’s death, after the battle of Babylon

(summer of A.D. 634), Dokht Zenân, daughter of Chosroes (Perwîz),

for a brief period, and then Sapor, son of Shahrîrân, occupied the

throne. The latter gave the hand of Azarmîdokht, another daughter

of Chosroes, to his favourite minister Furrukhzâd. But she resented

the alliance; and, at her call, the hero Siâwaksh slew the intended

husband on the marriage night, besieged the palace, and, putting Sapor

to death, proclaimed Azarmîdokht queen. Such was the state of things

when Mothanna, in August, went to Medîna. During his absence, Burân,

another daughter of Chosroes, having great influence with the nobles,

summoned the warrior Rustem from Khorasan to avenge the death of his

father, Furrukhzâd, which he did most effectually--defeating the royal

troops, killing Siâwaksh, and putting out Azarmîdokht’s eyes; and then

he set Burân upon the throne. Her regency (such was the ordinance)

should continue ten years, in default of any prince being discovered

of the royal blood; after which, the male line being proved extinct,

the dynasty would be confirmed in the female line. Burân then appointed

Rustem her minister, with supreme powers, and the nobles rallied round

him. This was just before Abu Obeid’s appearance on the stage.

The chronology, however, is utterly confused and uncertain. This Burân

is said to have opposed Shîra (Siroes) for a year; and, when he finally

succumbed to have retained her authority as arbiter (_àdil_) in

the State. She is also said to have sent gifts to Mahomet, &c. But

so much we may assume as certain that between Perwîz (A.D.

628) and Yezdegird there was an interval of four and a half years. See

Weil’s _Chalifen_, vol. i. p. 64, and Tabari, vol. ii. p. 178.

[202] The Persian campaign begins now to assume greater consistency

and detail; but, partly from alteration of the river beds, and partly

from the sites of towns, &c., being no longer known, it is not always

easy to follow the course of the campaign. Namârick, the scene of

Abu Obeid’s first victory, was on the Bâdacla, or western branch

of the Euphrates. Jabân was there taken prisoner; but the captors,

not recognising his rank, ransomed him in exchange for two skilled

artisans. Mothanna, discovering his quality, would have put him to

death for the deception, but Abu Obeid stood by the ransom. ‘The

faithful are one body,’ he said, ‘and quarter given by any one of them

must be sustained by all; it would be perfidy to put him to death.’ He

was therefore let go; but being again laid hold of after the battle of

the Bridge, was then executed. The second engagement took place at the

royal date-preserve of Sakatia, near Kaskar (subsequently the site of

Wâsit). Abu Obeid, hearing that Jalenûs was on his way with supports,

hurried on and gave battle to Narsa before he came up. Expeditions were

then sent to Barôsama and the country around.

[203] Called also Dzú Hâjib.

[204] It was twelve cubits long and eight broad.

[205] The common tradition is that Ibn Salûba, Chief of Hîra (as a kind

of neutral), constructed the bridge for both sides. The account given

by Belâdzori is more probable, that it was a standing bridge belonging

to Hîra, as it would be chiefly for its use. The Moslems crossed at

Marwaha, near Babylon. The action must therefore have been fought on

the banks of the main river, and not on the western channel.

[206] Dates now begin to be given, but the chronology is still very

doubtful. One authority places the battle forty days after that of

Wacûsa on the Yermûk--that is to say, seven or eight weeks after Abu

Bekr’s death. But in the interval between that event and the present

battle, there took place Abu Obeid’s protracted march, the battle of

Namârick and the expeditions following it, the gathering of Jabân’s

army and its march, all which must have occupied at the least two

months, and probably a good deal more.

[207] A marvellous vision was seen by the wife of Abu Obeid. A man

descended out of heaven, having a pitcher in his hand, out of which

he gave drink first to her husband, and then, one after another, to

several warriors of his tribe. She told Abu Obeid, who answered that

he wished it might be a token of impending martyrdom to him and them.

He then appointed each of the warriors, in turn, whom she had named,

to succeed him if he fell; and so it turned out. Abu Obeid cut at the

_lip_ of the elephant, being told (erroneously) that it was the

part where a mortal blow could most easily be struck.

[208] The same clan as Abu Obeid’s.

[209] The depth is as much as fifteen feet, and it runs at the rate of

one and a half to three knots an hour. (Rich’s _Travels_.) The

banks, however, are not so high, nor is the current so rapid, as of the

Tigris.

[210] The remarkable fact of a _Christian_ chief, Abu Zobeid,

of the Beni Tay, being, not only on the Moslem side, but taking so

prominent and brave a part in the defence of the broken force, is

noticed both by Ibn Athîr and Belâdzori. We shall see how largely

Mothanna was indebted to Christian help in the next decisive battle.

[211] Firuzân was the name of the insurgent. But, with the exception

that the nobles sacrificed the empire to intrigue and jealousies, we

are much in the dark as to the inner history of Persia at this time.

There were two parties, we are told, the Persians proper, or the

national faction, which supported Firuzân; and the other nationalities,

Rustem. But they soon coalesced.

[212] See above, pp. 128, 129.

[213] Sura, VIII. v. 14.

[214] The names of the tribes now flocking to the war are, many of them

familiar to the reader of the Prophet’s life; as the Beni Hantzala,

Khátham, Abd al Cays, Dhabha. The Beni Azd were 700 strong, under

Arfaja.

These levies are represented as the response to the present summons of

Omar, now made afresh after the battle of the Bridge; but erroneously

so, for they reached Mothanna at once, and fought under his banner

within a month of that disaster. It took some time for the fresh levies

to gather, as we shall see.

[215] The history of this contingent is interesting. Mahomet had

promised Jarîr that he should have a commission to gather the scattered

members of the Beni Bajîla into a fighting column. Jarîr followed

Khâlid into Irâc, and then returned to Medîna, where he found Abu Bekr

sick, or too much occupied to attend to his claim. But after his death,

Omar, in fulfilment of the Prophet’s promise, gave him letters to the

various governors to search out everywhere those who, before Islam,

belonged to the Bajîla tribe, and still desired to be associated with

it. A great rendezvous of these was accordingly made, at a spot between

the Hejâz and Irâc, whither, yielding to the persuasion of Omar, they

now bent their steps. There was rivalry between Jarîr and Arfaja as to

the command of this tribe; but the levy had some grudge against Arfaja,

who therefore left them and took the command of his own tribe, the Beni

Azd. Arfaja is also said, by another tradition, to have led the Beni

Bajîla _into Syria_; but that (if true) must have been a different

body of men, and at a different time.

[216] The tradition runs: ‘Among those who joined Mothanna was Anis ibn

Hilâl, with an immense following of the Beni Namr (Christians); for

they said, _We shall surely fight on the side of our own people_.’

[217] Rustem and the insurgent Firuzân had come to a compromise, and

agreed, we are told, to a division of power.

[218] Mehrân is called Hamadâny, because he was a native of that

province. He is said, as on the former occasion, to have given Mothanna

the option of crossing by the bridge.

The channel was the Bâdacla, which is here described as a spill canal

to pass off the surplus waters of the Euphrates when in flood, into

the _Jowf_ or sea of Najaf--the same as the western branch of the

river taken off (as already described) by the cut at Museyib, above

Babylon. Boweib was not far from Hîra, the inhabitants of which must

have been in much excitement during this and other great battles in the

vicinity, on which their alternating fate depended.

[219] ‘Mothanna was an example,’ we are told, ‘in word and deed.

The people trusted and obeyed him both in what they liked and what

they disliked’--a noble, single-minded commander, whose repeated

supersession had no effect upon his loyalty and zeal.

[220] ‘I brought the army,’ Mothanna said, ‘to an evil pass by getting

before the enemy and closing the bridge upon him; but the Lord

graciously warded off the danger. Beware, therefore, of following my

example, for verily it was a grievous lapse. It becometh us not to

bar the escape of those who have nothing to fall back upon.’ It will

be observed that the compunction was not at all for any unnecessary

bloodshed among the helpless enemy (an idea altogether foreign to the

thoughts of a Moslem crusader), but of gratuitous loss and risk to the

Moslems. It may have added to Mothanna’s grief that in repelling this

last charge he lost his brother. The slain are put at 100,000. ‘Years

after, even in the time of the civil wars, you could not walk across

the plain without stumbling on the bones strewed all around.’

[221] The horse and spoil of Mehrân were awarded to the column in which

this youth was fighting. Jarîr and another had a quarrel over them. Had

the youth been a Mussulman, no doubt he would have obtained the whole

as a prize.

[222] His own tribe, the Beni Bekr ibn Wâil.

[223] Amr went on with supplies to Hîra, where the rest of the families

were in hiding. The female defenders of their camp remind one of

Layard’s description of a similar occasion on which the women of an

Arab encampment rushed out to repel an attack, armed with tent-poles

and pitchforks. (_Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 168.)

[224] It would unnecessarily weary the reader to detail these raids at

any length. Some of them were against other and hostile branches of the

very Christian tribes that had fought at the Bridge and at Boweib on

the Moslem side; some were to obtain supplies for the army, which was

reduced at one time to great extremities for food; but most were for

the double purpose of striking terror into the people, and at the same

time gaining plunder. On one occasion the Beni Bekr ransomed a great

company of prisoners from the Taghlib tribe, by relinquishing their own

share of the booty. One of these minor actions is called ‘Anbâr _the

second_’; and another ‘Allîs _the second_.’

A somewhat remarkable incident shows that Omar had spies in all

quarters, and also that he dreaded the outbreak of ancestral quarrels

between the different Arab tribes. The garrison of Siffîn, in

Mesopotamia, composed of the Beni Namr and Taghlib, were attacked by

the Beni Bekr and driven out of their stronghold, over the banks into

the river. In their terror they cried out, _We are drowning!_ and

the Beni Bekr answered, _Yea, drowning for burning!_ in allusion

to an occasion in former days in which the Beni Taghlib had burned

alive some of the Beni Bekr tribe. Omar, learning the circumstance

from his spies, demanded what this threat--founded on a pre-Islamite

feud, and therefore alien from the spirit of Islam--should mean. He

was told that the threat was used, not in a spirit of retaliation, but

of punishment and example, and in the interests of the faith; and the

explanation was accepted.

[225] There is a tradition that the reason given by Omar why he set

aside both Khâlid and Mothanna was ‘his fear lest their influence

should become too great, and lead the people to put their trust in them

instead of in the Lord of Hosts.’ There may, no doubt, have been some

jealousy of Khâlid’s influence; but there could hardly have been any

of Mothanna’s. Again, Omar is said to have changed his mind both in

respect of Mothanna, on learning his gallant stand at the Bridge, and

in respect of Khâlid, on account of his bravery at Kinnisrin--adding

that, in both, Abu Bekr had proved a better judge of character than he.

Whatever foundation there may be for the tradition so far as Khâlid

is concerned, it can hardly apply to Mothanna, for it was not till

after the battle of the Bridge that Omar finally superseded him, by

appointing Sâd to the supreme command.

[226] The ancient Gaulonitis.

[227] The landscape between the Haurân and the Jordan is well described

by Laurence Oliphant, _Land of Gilead_, p. 62. See also Chesney’s

_Euphrates Expedition_ (London, 1850), vol. i. pp. 512–515, where

he speaks of the nightingale in these parts.

[228] The effect of Omar’s order depends on the nature of Abu Bekr’s

commission. It is usually held that the commanders of the several

columns were at the first independent, and that Khâlid held a similar

position in respect of the Irâc contingent, till on the eve of the

great engagement, he persuaded the rest to come temporarily under

his supreme command--a fact, of course, unknown to Omar when issuing

his order of deposition. If so, Abu Obeida would, by Omar’s order,

have simply superseded Khâlid in taking command of the Irâc troops

in addition to his own. On the other hand, it is held by some that

the commission given by Abu Bekr to Khâlid was that of generalissimo;

and that to this supreme command Abu Obeida succeeded, in addition

to that of his own proper column and of Khâlid’s. This is the more

probable, since Abu Obeida was certainly recognised thereafter as

commander-in-chief in Syria. It is, however, inconsistent with the

story of separate commands; but, see previous note, p. 111.

Tradition is still very shifty and uncertain. According to Belâdzori,

it is even held that the order of supersession was not received till

the siege of Damascus; but this seems improbable.

[229] It is said by some that Abu Obeida, though he received the order

on the Yermûk, yet held it back till after the siege of Damascus. But

this is out of the question. Had Abu Obeida not been supreme on that

occasion, Damascus would not have been allowed to capitulate. It was

with difficulty that Khâlid, even in his subordinate position, was

prevented from treating the city as taken by storm, which he certainly

would have done had he been supreme; and in that case all the property,

as well as the inhabitants and buildings, would have been at the mercy

of the captors.

[230] Gen. xv. 2. ‘The steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus.’

[231] The window from which St. Paul was let down, no doubt stood

in one of these military structures, or casemates, upon the wall.

Tradition still points out the window, ‘although the wall itself has

been several times rebuilt.’ (Robinson’s _Palestine_, p. 466.

Damascus is described, pp. 443 _et seq._) There is an admirable

account of the city given by H. von Kremer, in his vol. i. ch. iv.,

_Damascus und der Hof der Omejjaden_.

The Eastern gateway here mentioned is built of great masses of reddish

sandstone, well polished. The arch is rounded, and there are two

portals at the sides for foot-passengers. The main archway, intended

for camels, &c., is now closed. The ‘Straight street,’ only fifteen

feet wide, still runs right across the city, from this gate to the

Jâbia gate, on the west. There are several other similar gateways in

the great wall.

[232] For the Eastern gate invested by Khâlid, see Von Kramer, p. 210.

Amru sat before the Bâb Tûma, to the N.E.; Shorahbil before the Bâb

Farâdîs, to the north; and Yezîd patrolled from ‘the Lesser Gate to the

gate Al Heisan.’

[233] The length of the siege is variously given at seventy days by

Tabari, and six months by Wâckidy. The latter, indeed, places the

capitulation in autumn, a month or two before the battle of Câdesîya,

which was fought in November; but this leaves too little time for

intervening events. The order of events was as follows. The city

was first invested probably early in the spring; it capitulated in

the summer; then followed the battle of Fihl; after which Khâlid’s

contingent was sent back to Irâc, and appeared on the field of Câdesîya

just as the contest was proceeding.

[234] He is called by some Nastûs, by others Bahân. The latter is the

name of the general who inflicted on Khâlid ibn Saîd his severe defeat.

[235] Von Kremer describes the moat surrounding the walls as still from

ten to fifteen feet in breadth. It is filled with water from the Barada.

[236] Madzûr.

[237] The ordinary account is that Khâlid, hearing the merriment of

the feast, stormed the city on his side, unknown to the rest of the

army, and that the garrison, when overcome, hastened to conclude a

capitulation with Abu Obeida on the other side. But this is incredible.

When the victorious column, in possession of the eastern quarter, were

pushing their way through the city, it would have been altogether too

late. It is of course possible that Khâlid, knowing that the treaty was

impending, sought thus to anticipate the consequences of capitulation,

by which the city was lost as a prey, and its inhabitants as prisoners

of war. On the other hand, some traditions ascribe the acceptance of

the surrender and the treaty to Khâlid himself. But the account I have

given is the most probable and consistent.

Later authorities tell of treachery on the part of a bishop, who, from

the walls, held converse with Khâlid, and having obtained for himself

terms, pointed out the place for an escalade, &c.; also that Khâlid was

supplied with scaling ladders by a monastery in the Ghûta. Such tales

rest generally on weak and unreliable authority; but as regards the

last, the monks, we are told, obtained a permanent reduction of the

land-tax for the service now rendered. (See Belâdzori, p. 121.)

[238] From every jarîb, or local acre.

[239] It has been supposed that the column of Khâlid had reached the

Cathedral and taken possession of one half, before he was recalled, and

hence this arrangement. But it is not so; the surrender of one half

was stipulated irrespective of his attack, and (in conformity with the

treaty in other matters) as a fair concession to the conquering army.

Corresponding arrangements were made for the division of the churches

in other cities of Syria, which capitulated without an assault; but

it was only in Damascus that the difficulty as to disposing of the

Cathedral occurred.

[240] The following is the inscription as copied by Von Kremer, who

gives a minute description of this most interesting structure. It is

the Septuagint version of Psalm cxiv. 13, with the addition only of the

words, _O Christ_:--

Η. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ. ΣΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ. ΠΑΝΤΩΝ. ΤΩΝ ΑΙΟΝΩΝ. ΚΑΙ. Η. ΔΕΣΠΟΤΙΑ.

ΣΟΥ. ΕΝ. ΠΑΣΗ. ΓΕΝΕΑΙ

ΚΑΙ ΓΕΝΕΑΙ.

Belâdzori tells us that Muâvia and Abd al Malik both desired to take

the portion occupied by the Christians as a church into the Mosque,

and offered them any sum they chose to ask in compensation; but they

stood by the terms of the capitulation, and refused. It was reserved

for Welîd I., son of Abd al Malik, to seize the building. When he

summoned masons to demolish the partition-wall, they demurred, saying

that whoever touched a church became an idiot. Whereupon Welîd took

the pickaxe into his own hand, and commenced the work of demolition.

(Belâdzori, p. 125.)

I have given all the particulars I could find in the early and reliable

traditions regarding the siege and capitulation. The tales and romances

of later days are altogether without foundation.

[241] 1 Samuel xxxi. 7, _et seq._ _Beth-Shan_ became by contraction

_Beisân_. The classical name was Scythopolis, once a noble city,

the seat of a bishop and convents, and the birthplace of Cyril and

Basilides. Here Alexander Jannæus had his interview with Cleopatra; and

Pompey took it as well as Pella, on his way from Damascus to Judæa.

Pella has a special interest for us, as the spot where the Christians

took refuge when Titus attacked Judæa. Both cities were at the time of

our history populous and flourishing. (See Robinson’s _Palestine_, pp.

325 _et seq._)

[242] ‘The whole plain was now so full of fountains and rivulets as to

be in some places almost a marsh.’ (_Ibid._ pp. 325, 327.)

[243] The Roman army was so shut in, that their blockade is called ‘the

_first siege_ in Syria’; the second being that of Damascus. The

numbers of the enemy are, no doubt, as elsewhere, exaggerated.

[244] Some accounts place the battle of Fihl at the close of A.H.

XIII., and therefore prior to the siege of Damascus, in which city they

say that the broken army of the Romans took refuge. But the chronology

in Tabari is clearly as I have given it. The sequence of events is

governed by the battle of Câdesîya, which took place in October or

November, A.H. XIV., after the Irâc contingent had been dismissed from

Syria.

[245] It is of Dhirâr that so many marvellous tales are told in the

romances of Wâckidy and others.

[246] Bithynia.

[247] North of Tripoli.

[248] He was the son of Shahryâr and grandson of Kesra. His mother was

of the house of Baduria.

[249] Such as Aly, Talha, Zobeir, and Abd al Rahmân.

[250] A play upon the name _Sàd_, or ‘lion.’ His ordinary

patronymic was ibn Abu Wackkâs. (For his early history, see _Life of

Mahomet_, pp. 63, 68.)

When Mahomet got excited in battle, he used a form of adjuration to

Sád, which he is said never to have addressed to any other;--‘_By the

life of my father and mother_, shoot, O Sád.’ Sád died A.D.

655, worth 250,000 dirhems.

[251] Tradition puts into Omar’s mouth a set speech; but it has

evidently been framed for the occasion. We are also told that in the

levies which defiled before Omar were the (future) murderer of Othmân,

and also the assassin of Aly; and that Omar was observed to shrink back

as they passed--a touch of the proleptic and marvellous, now rare in

the matter-of-fact narratives of this period.

[252] Repentant rebel chiefs could thus lead their own tribes, though

they could not take a general command, or the command of a column

comprising ‘Companions’ in its ranks. Each of these leaders had

an allowance of 2,000 dirhems. Amr ibn Mádekerib, who was a great

gourmand, said to Omar: ‘A thousand for this side (slapping one side of

his stomach), and a thousand for that (slapping the other); but what

for this?’ (slapping the middle). Omar laughed, and gave him 500 more,

at the same time exclaiming (in admiration of his stalwart frame),

‘Praised be the Lord who hath created such a one as Amr!’

[253] The statements as to the numbers in the different columns vary.

After the battle of the Bridge, most of the recruits from Medîna

(Omar’s first levy) had fled, and left Mothanna alone with the Bedouin

contingents, mainly from the Bekr and Rabia tribes, belonging to the

N.E. of Arabia. He was then reinforced, by Omar’s command, with new

levies from the northern tribes of the Beni Tay, Codhâa, Bajîla, &c.;

and could thus show, at the battle of Boweib, a rank and file of some

8,000 men. Then Sád brought 8,000 more, and fresh contingents kept

trooping up from Yemen and the south; so that, with the Syrian levies,

which arrived during the battle of Câdesîya, he had in all 30,000 men.

[254] The Beni Rabia and Modhar, _i.e._ clans of northern lineage.

[255] Of the constitution of companies, Tabari says that ‘it was

according to the practice of the Prophet, and the system followed at

the establishment of the civil (pension) list.’ The first allusion is

not clear, for Mahomet made no such disposition of his soldiers. The

second points to the enrolment, shortly after made by Omar, of the

whole Arab race, according to descent. The organisation of commands was

very simple. First, there was the _Ameer_, or commander-in-chief,

responsible to the Caliph alone; immediately under the Ameer were

the generals commanding the centre, the wings, and brigades, van-

and rear-guards; between the generals and the decemvirs there was no

intermediate grade.

[256] ‘Companions’ here include all men who had seen and conversed with

the Prophet. The number of these now present was an altogether new

feature in the army of Irâc, hitherto mainly comprised of Bedouins. Of

the Companions, there were over 310 who had joined Mahomet before the

‘Tree of Fealty’ (_Life_, ch. xix.); 300 who had been under his

banner at the taking of Mecca; and 700 sons of Companions. We have had

no such detail for any previous engagement. It foreshadows the coming

classification of Omar’s civil list.

[257] So called _Al Atîck_, as before explained. The _Khandac_ here

approaches within a few miles of that channel.

[258] Some of these raiding expeditions are described at considerable

length by tradition, which, now becoming prolific, loves to dwell on

all the accompaniments of this great battle. An expedition sent for

cattle to the marshy jungles of the Lower Euphrates, for a long time

searched in vain. At last a boor told them that there were no herds in

the vicinity; whereupon an ox bellowed from the thicket, ‘The liar!

here we all are.’ They entered the jungle and found a great herd, which

was driven off, and lasted the army many days.

[259] On the right, we are told that towards the N.E. the country

was flooded as far as Walaja. For the ‘Trench of Sapor,’ dug three

centuries before, see _Life of Mahomet_, vol. i. p. clxxi., where

also will be found an account of the beautiful palace of Khawarnac. One

road led to the palace, another to the desert, and a third from the

bridge took a direction south into Arabia.

The chronology is somewhat obscure. Sád is said to have encamped only

two months at Câdesîya before the battle; but either he must have been

much longer in that vicinity, or have spent some considerable time

previously at Odzeib or Shirâf, or else upon the march thither--which

last is not unlikely, as they travelled in heavy order, like emigrants

with their families. Sád set out from Medîna in spring (it was March

when on the way he received tidings of Mothanna’s death), and the

great battle was not fought till November; so that three-quarters of

a year have to be accounted for. According to some traditions, Rustem

prolonged his march from Medâin to Câdesîya through a period of four

months, which, however, may be an exaggeration.

[260] The names of fifteen are given as ‘among’ those sent, so there

may have been as many as twenty or more. Of the number were the two

Moghîras, Asháth, Amr ibn Mádekerib, Nomân ibn Mocarrin, Otârid,

Moänna, &c.

[261] There is much embellishment and romance in the scene and in the

speeches, which are given in great detail, and must be taken only for

what they are worth. They have been spun by tradition, no doubt, around

a kernel of fact. There must have been many Persians present, who would

tell the tale in after days, as well as the members of the deputation

itself. There is fair probability for at least so much of the narrative

as I have given. Asim was brother of the warrior Cacâa.

[262] Jalenûs led the advanced column of 40,000; Rustem, the main body

of 60,000; there were 20,000 in the rear-guard; and besides, 60,000

camp followers accompanied the army. The right wing was commanded by

Hormuz, the left by Mehrân, son of Behrâm. Some traditions put the

numbers at 200,000; but it is all guess-work. 15,000 of these (as with

the Roman army) are called ‘bound (meaning, apparently, tied together)

for death,’ and 60,000 free; the rest seemingly slaves and convicts.

Abundance of tales are given of Rustem’s desponding dreams and auguries.

[263] These raids and expeditions are narrated at a length altogether

incommensurate with their importance--excepting that everything

connected with the impending battle is invested by tradition with

unusual significance.

[264] The three envoys were Ribia, Hodzeifa, and Moghîra. The

colloquies are much in the same style as those at the court of

Medâin--long addresses, and rather tiresome. Rustem is represented

at one time as inclining to Islam, and held back only by the taunts

of his officers from embracing it; at another, threatening the Arabs

with contemptuous denunciations. Much is drawn evidently from the

imagination of the traditionists.

[265] ‘If the Lord will,’ added one of his followers. ‘Whether He will

or not,’ said Rustem. Affecting to speak contemptuously of the Arabs,

he said: ‘It is going, I fear, to be a year of monkeys. The fox barks

when the lion is dead;’ meaning that in the time of Chosroes the Arabs

would not have dared to invade Persia. Fresh dreams and omens of a

portentous kind now multiplied upon him.

[266] There were, besides, the riding elephants of the court and

nobles. These must all have been imported from India. The elephant

does not appear to have been used by the Assyrians in war. It only

appears in their mural representations as a rarity, and under peaceful

associations.

The names of the other leaders were Dzul Hâjib (or Bahmân Jadoweih),

Mehrân, Hormuzan, and Bendzowân.

[267] The squib did not die out (as we shall see below), but assumed a

permanent form, as in this couplet:--

We fought patiently until the Lord vouchsafed us victory,

While Sád was safe within the walls of Câdesîya;

And we returned to our homes, finding many a widow there;

But among the women of Sád there was not any widow found.

[268] Sura viii., entitled _Anfâl_, or ‘The Spoils,’ is called

also ‘Sura Jehâd.’ It is a long chapter, of seventy-eight verses.

On ordinary occasions only suitable portions were recited. Here,

apparently, the entire Sura was read. Two other Suras--_Victory_

(xlviii.) and _She who is tried_ (lx.)--are also used before

battle, as containing warlike passages; and the practice is kept up in

Moslem campaigns to the present day.

[269] The battle lasted three days, and each day, it will be

observed, had a different name. The first, _Armâth_; the second,

_Aghwâth_ (alluding, as some think, to the _succour_ brought

that day by the Syrian contingent); the third, _Ghimâs_; the final

night, _Harîr_ (noise or clangour). The last is the only name

which clearly has a meaning, as we shall see. The others may have been

taken from names of places. See _C. de Perceval_, vol. iii. p.

484. Gibbon (ch. li.), ignoring the first day, translates the other

three as signifying Succour, Concussion, and Barking.

[270] Abu Mihjan confessed to Selma that in his cups he had been

singing these verses:--

Bury me when I die by the roots of the vine;

The moisture thereof will distil into my bones;

Bury me not in the open plain, for then I much fear

That no more again shall I taste the flavour of the grape.

But he swore to her that he would not again indulge in drinking, nor

in abuse of the Ameer. And Selma, explaining this to Sád, obtained his

release, so that he joined his comrades on the last great day of battle.

[271] Cacâa is said to have dressed up a troop of camels with

trappings, &c., resembling those of elephants, and so endeavoured to

affright the Persian cavalry. But it reads like a story.

[272] Sád felt satisfied and assured, so long as this shouting of

genealogies went on among his men, that all was right; and desired that

his sleep should not be disturbed during the night unless it ceased.

What kind of shouting the Persians’ was is not stated.

[273] So tradition says; but it seems a piece of extravagance that

thirty Persians should come forward, one after another, to be thus cut

down.

Cacâa is the great hero of Câdesîya whom tradition delights to honour.

He was fearful lest Hâshim should not arrive in time. So, to keep up

the spirits of the Moslems, he repeated the tactics of the previous

day. During the night he led his thousand men back a little way on

the Syrian road, and in the morning appeared as before, company after

company, as if they had been fresh reinforcements. The last had just

come in, when Hâshim himself appeared in sight with his 5,000. But

there is a tendency to fiction throughout as respects Cacâa.

[274] The first thing, we are told, that gave him assurance was the

sound of the Arabs vaingloriously reciting their genealogies, as they

had done the night before. Then, towards morning, Cacâa was heard

shouting--

We have slain a whole host, and more,

Singly, and in fours and fives,

(We were like black serpents in the manes of lions)

Until, as they fell, I called out lustily,

_The Lord is my Lord!_ whiles I had to keep my guard all round.

Whereupon Sád knew that the attack was going on favourably.

[275] Another account is that, on the approach of the Moslems, Rustem

shot an arrow, which transfixed the foot of Hilâl (the fortunate

captor) to his stirrup; whereupon Hilâl rushed forward and despatched

him. Gibbon’s version is very different from either.

[276] The Hindia (which answers to the Atick or Bâdacla) is described

by Geary as flowing swiftly, sixty yards broad, and in the full season

eight or nine feet deep, with banks from ten to twenty feet in height.

[277] This is on the authority of one present:--‘We followed our

husbands,’ she relates, ‘and no sooner was the Persian army routed than

we (the women) tucked up our garments, seized clubs in our hands, and

issued forth to the field of battle, which was strewn with the dead.

Every Moslem still alive we raised up, and gave drink to; and every

wounded heathen we despatched. And the children followed us, and were

helpers with us in this service.’ (_Tabari_, iii. p. 73.)

A characteristic incident is mentioned. Among the slain was the

Muedzzin of the army. There was a contention as to who should succeed

to this post of honour. It came near to blows and bloodshed, when Sád

interposed, and settled the matter by his authority.

[278] The captor received 30,000. Gibbon, resting on the authority of

D’Herbelot, tells us:--‘The standard of the monarchy was overthrown and

captured on the field--a leathern apron of a blacksmith who, in ancient

times, had arisen, the deliverer of Persia; but this badge of heroic

poverty was disguised and almost concealed by a profusion of precious

gems.’ Our authorities simply describe it as made of panthers’ skins,

richly jewelled.

[279] The vast import of the battle is signified by the tradition that

the tidings of the victory were carried by the Genii to distant parts,

long before it was possible for any human messenger to reach.

[280] Written _Burs_. There is a town Bûrsa on the Euphrates,

four leagues below Babylon; but I take it that the ruin (_Tower of

Babel_) is meant, which lay in the way.

[281] In these engagements, Sûra, Kûtha, and Sabât, towns situated on

or near the Tigris, were either taken, or submitted themselves to the

Moslem arms. While encamped at Babylon, Sád made a pilgrimage to the

shrine (_Majlis_) of Abraham.

[282] Medâin signifies ‘Cities.’ It is said to have comprised a cluster

of seven towns, but it is ordinarily taken to designate the twin cities

of Seleucia and Ctesiphon. The double bend of the Tigris, in the form

of the upper part of the letter S (with the convex side to the west),

incloses a considerable peninsula on the eastern bank, and on this

stands the Tâk i Kesra.

[283] Geary, in the account of his recent journey, says it is fast

falling into decay; but ‘the arch unequalled in the world’ is still

nearly entire. Built of brick, it has a façade 450 long and 160 deep,

and the niches and cornices and mouldings still remain. The vaulted

arch is nearly 100 feet high, with a span of 80 feet.

[284] It is also called Nahr Shîr, and is described as beyond (i.e.

to the east of) Sabât. In the earlier campaigns, this name of _Nahr

Shîr_ frequently occurs, as the point at which the pursuit of the

victorious columns was stopped by the Persian outposts.

[285] Sura xiv. v. 44.

[286] Among the single combats, a singular one is mentioned, in

which Zohra challenged Shahryâr, a mighty champion. They closed, and

each slew the other. But the story, though told with some detail, is

uncertain; for, according to other accounts, Zohra was killed many

years after by a fanatic (Khârijite) in the time of Hajjâj.

The Arabs had twenty catapults--an instrument of war not unknown in

Arabia; see the siege of Tâyif (_Life of Mahomet_, p. 433). In

Mesopotamia, now at Sád’s command, there were ample materials for their

construction. The ramparts must have been of great thickness; for,

composed of sun-dried bricks, their outline can be still distinctly

traced on either bank. Of buildings, however, there are, besides

the _Tâk i Kesra_, no other remains of any kind whatever, the

materials having all been carried off to build the city of Baghdad, 16

miles above it. But coins and coffins abound.

In the siege we are told that the people, reduced to the utmost

distress, were driven to feed on cats and dogs. But, with the whole

river front open to them by boat, and the other half of the city with

plentiful supplies safe on the opposite bank, it is difficult to

understand how this could have been.

[287] As many as 100,000 are said to have been thus captured and

released.

[288] A touch of the marvellous affects the story of the capture of

Medâin at several points. Sád’s reply was communicated orally by Abu

Mocarrin--‘who spake to the king in words given to him at the moment by

the Lord, but which he himself understood not, neither did those about

him.’ The fact was--as they were afterwards told by the single Persian

left in the western suburb--that Abu Mocarrin had delivered (without

knowing it) in the Persian tongue this mysterious answer: ‘The Moslems

will never make peace with thee, till they have eaten the honey of

Afrîdûn, along with the citrons of Kûtha.’ ‘Alas!’ exclaimed the king,

‘what was this but an angelic message spoken through the lips of the

messenger? Even the angels have turned against us!’ And so, followed by

his people, he fled across the river.

[289] Salmân, ‘the Persian,’ was a convert of some standing. It was

he who suggested to Mahomet the device of digging a trench to defend

Medîna against the siege which the Coreish laid to it, A.H. 5.

(_Life of Mahomet_, chap. xvii.) A Christian, native of Ispahan

(according to others, of Ram Hormuz), he had been taken captive in

some Bedouin raid, and sold as a slave at Medîna, where he obtained

his freedom on professing Islam. We do not hear much more of him after

this. He died at Medâin.

[290] This was done that the horses might the more readily follow one

another.

[291] The gallant feat was repeated by Timoor, when he took Baghdad,

A.D. 1392; his army, swimming across the river, ‘thereby

impressed the inhabitants with an opinion that they were invincible.’

(Chesney, vol. i. p. 32.) The Tigris is more rapid, and has higher and

steeper banks, than the Euphrates. It is 200 yards wide, and flows at

over four miles an hour. The depth is considerable, and no fords are

spoken of by travellers. According to Rich, it is low in winter, begins

to rise in March from the melting of the snow on the hills, and reaches

its height in May. In flood, he says, the current is over seven miles

an hour. At the period of the passage, the stream must have been on the

rise. Tradition says it was in full flood.

Moslem annalists may be excused for surrounding the heroic passage with

many marvellous associations. For example, not only was there no loss

of life, but not even of the most trifling article. A drinking jug was

carried away by the current, but even that was recovered. The water

reached the horses’ manes, but they trod as it were on firm ground, &c.

And it is added truly: ‘In the whole history of Islam, there was no

passage more wonderful than this crossing of the Tigris and the capture

of the royal city.’

[292] Sura xliv. 25.

[293] The treasure alone was put at Three millions of dirhems. The

property divided, including the Fifth, was estimated at Nine hundred

millions.

[294] It was used, mingled with wax, for the candles of the wealthy.

Gibbon has a note, _in loco_, on the more precious sorts.

[295] Say five or six thousand pounds each.

[296] Five swords were captured, notable not only for intrinsic value

but historical interest. One had been the sword of the Kaiser of Rome;

another had been taken from the Khacân of the Turks; and a third had

been that of Dâhir, ‘King of Hind.’ The sword of Bahram was given to

Cacâa; and Sád kept the Kaiser’s for himself.

[297] As far as Khanickîn.

[298] The ruins of Rei are still visible within a few miles of Teheran.

[299] We shall hear more of Ziâd and of his parentage. His reputed

father was Abu Sofîan, who is said to have met his mother, a slave kept

by another person, at Tayif. He was eventually acknowledged by Muâvia

(son of Abu Sofîan) as his brother, much to the scandal of the public.

He was destined to play a prominent part in the history which follows.

[300] The Bedouin part of the garrison was formed of the Beni Iyâdh,

Tâghlib, Namr, &c. Tekrît was stormed by Timoor, after an obstinate

defence, A.D. 1392. It is now ‘a miserable village’ of 600

houses. But the ruins around are extensive, and a castellated building

overhangs the river at a height of 200 feet, with a fosse behind and a

staircase leading down to the river, where the massacre no doubt took

place.

[301] Kirckesia or Circesium.

[302] The pest of gigantic and noisome mosquitoes, issuing from the

swamps and groves in overpowering swarms, is complained of by all

travellers in this quarter. See, e.g., Loftus’s _Travels_, p. 280.

[303] We are constantly reminded, in the tradition of this period, of

Omar’s nervous apprehension lest his armies should be tempted beyond

the reach of succour in case of any disaster befalling them.

[304] Reeds, wattle, and mud. (_Belâdzori._)

[305] The square was set out thus. A powerful archer, from the centre,

shot arrows on all four sides; where the arrows reached was the limit,

and the square was measured out accordingly. The main streets were 40

cubits wide, the cross ones 20, and the lanes 7.

[306] In Kûfa the southern tribes, with the Beni Morâd at their head,

greatly outnumbered the northern, which latter belonged to the Beni

Nizâr. The two nationalities inhabited separate divisions of the city,

and prayed each in its own Mosque. Bussorah, on the contrary, was

almost entirely peopled from the north; and the five chief clans--Azd,

Temîm, Bekr, Abd al Cays, and the Natives of Medîna (Ansâr)--occupied

each a separate quarter of its own.

In the time of Ziâd (A.H. 50), Belâdzori tells us that in

Bussorah the register (Dewân or civil list) numbered 80,000 warriors,

and their wives and children 120,000, all drawing pensions from the

State. Kûfa is rated at 60,000 fighting men on the roll, with families

numbering 80,000 souls. The proportion of families to fighting men

must surely have been much greater, as the harems of all of them

swarmed with children; and the Arab population of each city was

probably considerably greater than I have ventured (on the authority

of Belâdzori) to note in the text. There also must have been a great

multitude other than Arabs--dependants, clients, slaves, &c., Moslem

and non-Moslem; so that, as the cities grew, it is not improbable that

they numbered, of all classes, over 300,000 each. The population would

fluctuate according to the numbers engaged in the field.

[307] At Marj Rum, to the N.W. of Damascus.

[308] Edessa.

[309] The Twelve ‘Leaders’ chosen by Mahomet at the Pledge of Acaba.

(_Life of Mahomet_, p. 134.)

[310] The church of Hâma (_Epiphania_) was turned into a mosque.

Arrestân (_Arethusa_) on the Orontes, Shaizar (_Larissa_),

Maára, and other places of less importance, are mentioned as taken

possession of on this march.

[311] Kinnisrîn or _Chalcis_. According to some, the inhabitants

were forced to retire to Antioch, from whence they returned on peace

being restored. Others say that the city with its churches was, like

Damascus, divided. But the received tradition is that the people were

treated with moderation, and that only one plot of ground was taken

possession of for a mosque.

[312] Antioch, ‘_Queen of the East_, was the third metropolis of

the world.... Its wide circuit of many miles was surrounded by walls

of astonishing height and thickness, which had been carried across

ravines and over mountain summits with such daring magnificence of

conception as to give the city the aspect of being defended by its own

encircling mountains.’ (Farrar’s _St. Paul_, vol. i. p. 288.)

The ravages, not many years before, of the Persian invasion must have

still left their mark upon this noble city, and possibly affected its

means of defence. Still, we might reasonably have expected something

more from tradition than the simple mention of a battle outside the

famous citadel of Northern Syria, followed by its capitulation. But the

_history_ of the fall of Syria is little more than a calendar of

dates and places.

[313] Samsât, or Shamsât, the same as _Samosata_. Besides Marásh

(_Germanica_) and Menbij (_Hierapolis_), Tell Azâz, Doluk,

and many other places in this direction were overrun by Khâlid upon

this occasion.

[314] The meaning is somewhat obscure. The words are, ‘until there be

born the Accursed one. And I would not that he should be born; for his

deeds shall not be good; and he will devise evil against Rome.’

[315] _Life of Mahomet_, p. 384.

[316] The Jewish law of retaliation--‘eye for eye, nose for nose, ear

for ear, tooth for tooth,’ &c.--is maintained in the Corân. See Sura

ii. v. 179, and v. v. 53.

[317] The story is variously told, but the main facts, as given in the

text, appear beyond doubt. Tradition gives us first a romantic tale

of what happened at ‘the Iron Bridge’ on the Orontes, where Jabala

was posted to cover Antioch. There a Mussulman chief was brought in a

prisoner to Jabala’s camp. He happened to be descended from the same

ancestry, and on his reciting the poem of Hassân on the glories of the

Ghassanide dynasty, he was dismissed with rich presents; and, in the

end, Jabala himself went over to the Moslem camp.

After he had retired to the Byzantine Court, an envoy arrived at

Constantinople, with diplomatic communications from Medîna, and to him

Jabala made known his sorrows and pining after the desert. Pressed to

return to Arabia, he agreed to do so, if Omar would give him one of his

daughters in marriage and designate him his successor. He at the same

time sent a rich gift to Hassân, who composed a poem, still extant, in

token of his gratitude. The following is a couplet from the same:--

‘Jabala, the son of Jafna, forgot me not, when he reigned in Syria,

Nor yet after he had returned at Constantinople to the Christian

faith.’

We are to believe that Omar accepted the offer! but the officer who

carried the answer to Constantinople found that Jabala had died (A.H.

XX.). Others hold that Jabala survived to the reign of Muâvia, who

tempted him in vain to return to Syria by the promise of a property at

Damascus.

The colony of his descendants and followers is said to have survived at

Constantinople till the fall of the Cæsars; and a colour of likelihood

is given to the statement from the frequent recurrence of the name

_Gabala_ among the notables at the court of Heraclius’ successors.

(See _Caussin de Perceval_, vol. iii. p. 510.)

[318] It was the same call as a general call to prayer. (See _Life of

Mahomet_, p. 205.)

[319] The tradition is given in Ibn al Athîr. There is always a

tendency to magnify the simplicity and self-abnegation of the first

two Caliphs, and something in the story may be due to this. But the

tradition is of a character otherwise not likely to have been invented;

and there is nothing in it very improbable, as the two courts had

dealings with each other, not always unfriendly.

[320] According to some authorities, this command was conferred on

Khâlid by Omar on his visit to Jerusalem.

[321] Palestine (_Filistîn_) was thus confined to the lower and western

portion of the Holy Land, south of a line from Jerusalem and Jericho

to Cæsarea. The province of the Jordan (_Ordonna_) extended as far

north-west as Sûr, Tyre, and Acca. To the north of this, again, was

Syria or _Shâm_. (See _Caussin de Perceval_, vol. iii. p. 425.)

[322] Artabûn is called ‘the shallowest and the unluckiest of the

Romans.’ Omar said of him: ‘We shall play off Artabûn the Arab (meaning

Amru) against Artabûn the Roman, and see what cometh.’ Artabûn thought

to throw Amru off his guard, by telling him, at the interview which is

said to have taken place between them, that he was going to retire on

Egypt. When Omar was told of the ambush and Amru’s escape by taking

another road, he said, ‘Verily, Amru is a lucky fellow.’

[323] _Ramleh_ was not founded till the eighth century. The place

was previously named Rama (Arimathea), near which Ramleh was built; but

tradition, by anticipation, always calls it Ramleh.

Gaza, according to some, was captured in the first invasion, two years

before. The following places are mentioned as now reduced:--Sebastia

(on the way from Cæsarea to Nablûs, where is the tomb of John the son

of Zacharias); Beit-Jibrîn (or _Beth Gabara_); Yabna; Ramh (Marj

Arjûn); Ascalon; Amwâs. In fact, the whole country, with the single

exception of Cæsarea, now fell into the hands of the Arabs and became

tributary.

The conquest of Palestine, however, like that of Syria, is a mere

epitome, with great confusion of dates. This is forcibly illustrated

by the perfunctory notice of the important battle of Ajnadein, and

the uncertainty surrounding its chronology. Several authorities place

it even before Yermûk, giving the date as on a Saturday, in Jumâd I.,

A.H. XIII. (634 A.D.). As the date given really fell upon a Saturday,

Weil adopts this view. But it is opposed to the consistent though very

summary narrative of the best authorities, as well as to the natural

course of the campaign, which, as we have seen, began on the _east_

side of the Jordan, all the eastern province being reduced before the

Arabs ventured to cross over to the well-garrisoned country west of the

Jordan.

[324] It was foretold (so the tradition runs) in the Jewish books, that

Jerusalem would be captured by a king whose name was formed but of

three letters (as in that of Omar [Arabic]), and whose description

tallied otherwise so exactly with that of the Caliph that there could

be no doubt that he was the personage meant by the prophecy. When

this was told to Artabûn, he lost all heart, and departed to Egypt;

whereupon the Patriarch sent to make terms with Amru. The tradition is

curious, and, however fabulous in appearance, may possibly have had

some foundation in fact.

[325] ‘Whither away?’ said Aly to the Caliph; ‘wilt thou go and fight

with dogs?’ ‘Nay,’ replied Omar; ‘not so, but I mean to visit the seat

of war, before Abbâs is taken, and the flames of sedition burst forth.’

He then started, leaving Aly in charge of Medîna. But the tradition has

a strong Abbasside tinge.

[326] The name is not given by the Arabian annalists. We learn it from

Theophanes.

[327] The received account is that Omar made this (his first) journey

to Syria on _horseback_; the second (on the Roman invasion by sea),

riding on a _camel_; the third (at the great plague) on a _mule_; and

the last (his progress through Syria) on an _ass_.

[328] The heavenly journey is thus referred to in the Corân: ‘Praise be

to Him, who carried His servant by night to the FARTHER TEMPLE (_Masjid

al Acksa_), the environs of which we have made blessed.’ Sura xvii.

(The ‘Farther Temple,’ in opposition to the Nearer Temple, the Kaaba.)

See the tale, _Life of Mahomet_, p. 126. Jerusalem was the Kibla of

Mahomet and his followers all the time he worshipped at Mecca. In

the second year after his flight to Medîna, the Prophet was suddenly

instructed to turn instead to Mecca, to which ever since, the Moslems

have turned at prayer. (_Ibid._ p. 198.)

[329] The _Haram_, is the sacred inclosure on the S.E. corner of Mount

Zion. It is minutely described by Ali Bey, vol. ii. p. 214, with its

two great mosques, _Masjid al Acksa_ (said to be the Basilica of the

Virgin) and _Kubbet al Sakhra_ (the Dome of the Stone),--where also

will be found plans and sketches of the same. Until the Crimean War,

the Haram was guarded, as sacredly as Mecca itself, from the tread of

an infidel. But it is now more or less accessible, and an elaborate

survey of the two Mosques and their surroundings has recently been made

by the Palestine Exploration Society: see their _Proceedings_, January

1880.

The _Kubbet al Sakhra_, or ‘Dome of the Stone,’ has been built

polygonal to meet the shape of the ‘Stone,’ or Rock referred to in

the text, which gives its name to the Mosque. This rock rises to a

height of six or seven feet from a base, according to Ali Bey, 33 feet

in diameter (or, according to others, 57 feet long and 43 wide). The

architecture is Byzantine, but Greek builders were no doubt engaged for

its construction. There is probably little, if anything, of original

Christian building in the present Haram.

Ali Bey describes the _Sakhra_ itself as a stony apex cropping

out from the rock, which, when Mahomet stood upon it, ‘sensible of the

happiness of bearing the holy burden, depressed itself, and becoming

soft like wax, received the print of his holy foot upon the upper

part.... This print is now covered with large sort of cage of gilt

metal wire, worked in such a manner that the print cannot be seen on

account of the darkness within, but it may be touched with the hand

through a hole made on purpose. The believers, after having touched the

print, proceed to sanctify themselves by passing the hand over the face

and beard.’ (_Travels of Ali Bey_, vol. ii. p. 220.)

[330] According to Theophanes, Omar, clad in unclean garments of camel

hair, demanded of Sophronius to be shown over the Temple of Solomon,

and was with difficulty constrained to change them by the protestations

of the Patriarch, who wept over the threatened ‘abomination of

desolation.’ But the general tenor of Christian tradition (whatever

its worth may be) is, as in the text, altogether favourable to Omar’s

courtesy and condescension. Sophronius, we are told, showed him

the stony pillow of Jacob. It was covered with soil and sweepings.

Whereupon Omar, with his own hands, assisted by his people, set to work

to clear the spot, and the rock (_Sakhra_) having been laid bare,

the foundation of the Great Mosque was built upon it.

The most unlikely part of these traditions is that which supposes

that Omar would have ever thought of praying in a church adorned by

pictures, crosses, &c., though of course it is possible that he may

have made the excuse given in the text out of courtesy and politeness.

[331] It is of this journey the tale is told that in the midst of one

of his discourses Omar was interrupted by an ecclesiastic. The Caliph

quoted from the Corân the passage--_Whom the Lord misleadeth, for

him there is no guide_ (Sura iv. 90, 142; xvii. 99; and xviii. 6),

whereupon the Christian cried out: _Nay! God misleadeth no one._

Omar threatened that he would behead the Christian if he continued

his interruption, and so the Christian held his peace. The story is

told both in the _Romance of Wâckidy_, and in the _Fatooh al

Shâm_; and though wanting in authority, gives truly the _popular

impression_ of the doctrine of Predestination as taught in the

Corân. (See _The Corân: its Composition and Teaching_, Christian

Knowledge Society, p. 56.)

[332] The monks of the ‘Convent of Khâlid,’ near Damascus, received a

permanent remission of their land tax as a reward for the treacherous

aid rendered by them at the siege of that city. A similar concession

was enjoyed by the Samaritans, who hated both Jews and Christians

equally, and aided the Arabs as guides and spies; but the fruits of

their treachery were resumed by Yezîd.

Omar made an assignment from the tithes to a colony of Christian lepers

near Jâbia; but it seems to have been a purely charitable grant.

[333] Sura ix. 30.

[334] In some treaties given by Belâdzori and others, as concluded at

the first conquest, some of these disabilities are mentioned; but I

doubt their genuineness. Though the law was such, the practice varied

greatly. Under intolerant Caliphs, such as the orthodox Abbassides,

the poor Christians were always liable to have a fresh order issued to

demolish all but their ancient churches, close the Christian schools,

&c.

[335] According to Caussin de Perceval, the strongholds along the

Tigris, as well as the Euphrates--Tekrît, Hît, &c.--were only now

reduced by the Arabs; but, according to the best traditions, these

towns fell into the hands of the Moslems, shortly after the battle of

Câdesîya.