[336] The story of this inroad and widespread rising is told by

tradition with the extremest brevity; but it is very evident that the

position of Abu Obeida must, for some little time, have been very

critical. Lebeau conjectures that the naval attack was led from Egypt

by Constantine, the son of Heraclius; and M. Caussin de Perceval thinks

that this is probable (vol. iii. p. 512).

[337] It seems almost certain that Khâlid did so serve, though there

are other traditions to the effect that he never served under any other

general than Abu Obeida. He may have led an independent expedition.

[338] Now Diâr Bekr.

[339] Byzantine historians tell us that the Roman governor of Edessa

(Roha) concluded a treaty with Iyâdh, by which he bound himself to pay

100,000 pieces of gold, as black-mail, with the view of preserving

his province from Saracen inroad, but that Heraclius disowned the

humiliating condition, and deposed the governor. There is no hint of

this in our Arabian authorities.

[340] Four thousand of the Beni Iyâdh were sent back in a body to

Mesopotamia from Asia Minor, and resumed their allegiance to the

Caliph, though continuing to profess the Christian faith. The remainder

dispersed on the borders of the two kingdoms.

[341] That is, their tax was called _úshr_ (‘tenth’), the tithe paid

by the believer, instead of _jazia_. It may be doubted whether the

intolerant condition, forbidding the education of the children in

Christian doctrine, was meant otherwise than as a nominal indication

of the supremacy of Islam. It certainly was not enforced (if at all)

with any rigour, for we read of this great tribe continuing in the

profession of Christianity under the Omeyyad, and even under the

Abbasside, dynasties. And in still later times they had their bishops

at Ana, on the Euphrates. (See Caussin de Perceval, v. iii. p. 324.)

We now part with that invaluable author, whose history closes with this

narrative.

[342] Nothing illustrates the vagueness of the Syrian narrative

so forcibly as the uncertainty of the year in which Cæsarea fell.

Byzantine historians make the siege last seven years, and place the

fall in the year A.H. 19, that is, A.D. 640. Various traditions place

it in every year between A.H. 14 and A.H. 20, and represent the siege

as having lasted, some three, some four, some seven years.

A Jew is said to have betrayed the town by discovering to the Arabs

an undefended aqueduct, through which they effected an entrance.

The population was mixed; 70,000, we are told, were Greeks, fed

(_murtazac_) from the public stores; 30,000 Samaritans; and

200,000 (?) Jews. It was a sad fate that of the captives. It is

mentioned incidentally that two were made over to the daughters of

Asâd ibn Zorâra, one of the twelve leaders, in place of two from Ain

Tamar, who had died in their service. Multitudes of Greeks--men and

women--must have pined miserably in a strange land and in hopeless

servitude. And amongst these there must have been many women of gentle

birth forced into menial office, or if young and fair to look upon,

reserved for a worse fate--liable, when their masters were tired of

them, to be sold into other hands. No wonder that Al Kindy, in his

Apology, inveighs, with scathing denunciation, against the slavery

practised in these Moslem crusades.

[343] _Calansua_, or helmet, worn by the captains of the Syrian

army.

[344] Khâlid is no great favourite of Abbasside tradition. He belonged

to a branch distant from that of the Prophet, which attached itself to

the Omeyyads, of whom, in the struggle with Aly, Abdallah son of Khâlid

was a staunch adherent.

The general outline of Khâlid’s case is clear, though there is variety

in the details. According to some accounts, Omar returned to him all

the property he had confiscated. Others say that, when pressed to do

so, he said, ‘Nay, that be far from me. I am but the agent of the

Moslems, and am bound to administer their property faithfully. I will

never give it back.’

Tabari gives yet another account. Omar wrote to Abu Obeida commanding

him to arraign Khâlid; but adding that if he would confess his guilt in

the affair of Mâlik ibn Noweira, he would pardon him and restore him

to his Government. Khâlid repaired for counsel to his sister Fâtima,

then with her husband in Syria. She dissuaded him from confessing;

for if he did so, it would only give Omar--who was determined on his

ruin--a handle to depose him with disgrace. He bent down, and, kissing

her forehead, said: ‘It is the truth, my sister.’ So he returned to

Abu Obeida, and refused to make any confession. Thereupon Bilâl, as in

the text, stripped off his kerchief, and so on, as in the text. At the

conclusion of the trial Abu Obeida, by order of the Caliph, confiscated

half of his property, even to his sandals--taking one and leaving the

other.

[345] For an account of the persecution and martyrdom, avenged by the

invasion of the Abyssinian Negus, see _Life of Mahomet_, vol. i.

p. clxii. For the treaty of Mahomet, vol. iii. p. 299 (second edition,

p. 158).

[346] The expulsion of the Jews is ordinarily assigned to the twentieth

year of the Hegira; that of the Christians took place earlier. For

the conquest of Kheibar, see _Life of Mahomet_, p. 395; and for

the death-bed saying of the Prophet, _ibid._ p. 503. That the

Peninsula should be wholly and exclusively Moslem was a sentiment so

closely connected with the inspiration of Mahomet, when he declared

in the Corân that he was ‘sent a prophet to the Arabs,’ and so forth,

that it might well have recurred in the feverish delusions of his last

illness. But whether or no, the utterance--whatever its purport--was

evidently not taken at the time as an obligatory command. Had it been

so, we may be sure that Abu Bekr would have made it his first concern

to give effect to it, and no other reason would have been required

to justify the act. As it is, various reasons are assigned for the

expatriation of the Christians. First, we are told that they took

usury greedily; next, that they fell to variance among themselves, and

_asked_ to be removed; lastly, that they were growing so strong

that Omar became afraid of them. As regards the Jews, we are told that

they were guilty of murder, and also that they attacked the Caliph’s

son.

The governors of the districts to which they emigrated had it in charge

to treat them fairly. The Christians received special consideration,

and the tale of raiment (which the heads of the community collected by

yearly circuits among their people in Irâc and Syria) was reduced by

successive Caliphs as the numbers of the tribe diminished by conversion

to Islam or other cause.

Fadak, a dependency of Kheibar, was long a source of discontent to

the descendants of Fâtima, who, as we have seen, claimed it for her

patrimony; but Abu Bekr reserved it for the poor and the kinsmen of the

Prophet (Beni Hâshim). Certain of the Omeyyad Caliphs took possession

of it as their private property. It was repeatedly released to the

claimants as an act of justice or of piety (notably by Omar II., the

pietist of the Dynasty); but it was always soon resumed again.

[347] For example, the grandsons of the Prophet got 5,000 pieces each,

like the men of Bedr. As to Abbâs, his uncle, some say he was rated at

5,000 pieces, others 7,000, and some again as high as 12,000 or even

24,000; but these last figures are evidently a pandering of tradition

to glorify Abbâs and exalt the Abbasside dynasty under courtly

influence. Abbâs was of course respected in the time of Omar as the

Prophet’s uncle; but he never took any leading part at the Caliph’s

court; and indeed his antecedents, during the life of Mahomet, were

not much to his credit. See _Life of Mahomet_, p. 417. Ayesha was

allotted 2,000 pieces extra ‘for the love the Prophet bare to her;’ but

according to some, she declined to take it. The slave-concubines (Safia

and Juweiria) were at first rated at 6,000, but at the solicitation of

the other widows they were placed on an equality with them.

[348] For these see _ibid._ pp. 368, 371, chap. xix.

[349] Thus certain of the Dihcâns, or Persian Talookdars, who threw in

their lot with the invading army, had a high rank, with the title to

1,000 pieces, conferred upon them.

[350] See _Life of Mahomet_, p. 486.

[351] The dole was fixed, after a trial of what was sufficient as a

monthly ration, for the support of sixty poor persons. Two jarîbs of

grain, accordingly, was the portion appointed, as a minimum, to which

every indigent believer of whatever race was entitled.

[352] The jealous susceptibilities of the rival tribes were continually

breaking forth; as for example, in the election of a Muedzzin in place

of the one killed at Câdesîya to proclaim the times of prayer to the

army, on which a free fight arose that nearly ended in bloodshed.

[353] Belâdzori, p. 458.

[354] Omar gave out that if the revenues sufficiently increased, he

intended to advance the stipend of every man in the upper grades

to 4,000 dirhems. It is said also that he contemplated the issue

of a sumptuary ordinance both for Syria and Irâc, by which 1,000

dirhems were to be considered the allowance for the support of the

stipendiary’s family, 1,000 for his personal expenses, 1,000 for house

and furnishings, and the remainder for hospitable entertainment; but

that he died before he could issue the order. The object of such a

rule, and the practicability of giving effect to it, are however

doubtful.

[355] See _Life of Mahomet_, p. 555; and _The Corân: its Composition

and Teaching_, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

[356] This is the received derivation of the era called the _Year of

Ashes_. Others call it so because the land was pulverised, dark and

dusty, without a blade of grass or of any green thing.

[357] The secretary of Wâckidy has several pages filled with traditions

about Omar’s treatment of the famine, and self-denying solicitude for

his people. He refused to ride a horse during the famine because it

consumed corn. He chided his son for eating a cucumber, when men around

were dying of hunger, and so forth. There may be much of exaggeration;

but at the bottom of it all lies a fine trait in Omar’s character.

[358] Ayla, on the Gulf of Acaba, at the head of the Red Sea.

[359] Here again the Kâtib Wâckidy gives a great array of traditions

regarding Omar’s prayers and the service for rain. Some of these which

notice the part taken by Abbâs (but they are comparatively few in

number) have been eagerly seized by the Abbasside annalists to glorify

the patriarch, and through him the dynasty descended from him. The tale

is cast in the supernatural type of the Prophet’s life. A man finding

a sheep which he had slaughtered to be nothing but mere skin and bone

without a drop of blood, in his distress invokes Mahomet, who thereupon

appears to him in a vision, assures him that he shares the distress

of his people, and bids him tell Omar ‘to call to mind that which he

had forgotten.’ A general assembly is summoned in the Great Mosque,

and after much heart-searching as to what the Prophet meant by these

words, they betake themselves to prayer. Omar seizes the hand of Abbâs,

and for the sake of the Prophet’s aged kinsman, beseeches the mercy of

Heaven. Then Abbâs himself prays, and the people weep floods of tears.

The heavens are suddenly overcast, and the rain descends. Thereupon

Abbâs is saluted as ‘the Waterer of the two Holy Places,’ i.e. of Mecca

and Medîna.

[360] We are told that Amru, to meet the famine, established a shipping

service _between Egypt_ and the ports of the Hejâz, that the trade

in grain thus begun was permanently established, and that prices were

thereafter little higher at Medîna than in Egypt. But Egypt was not

conquered till two years later; and in the hostile state of the border

preceding the conquest, it is impossible that a peaceful trade in corn

could have sprung up. We must therefore conclude that tradition here

anticipates that which occurred shortly after, when Omar reopened the

communication from the Nile to Lake Timsa and Suez, and Egypt found a

rich customer in the markets of Medîna and the Hejâz.

[361] The council was held at Sargh, near Tebûk, on the confines

of Syria. During the discussion Abd al Rahmân quoted a saying of

Mahomet:--‘If pestilence break out in a land, go not thither; if thou

art there, flee not from it.’ Omar’s views were more reasonable, and

he justified them by this illustration: ‘Suppose that ye alight in a

valley, whereof one side is green with pasture, and the other bare and

barren, whichever side ye let loose your camels upon, it would be by

the decree of God; but ye would choose the brow that was green.’ And so

he judged that in removing the people from the scene of danger into a

healthier locality, he was making no attempt to flee from the decree of

God.

[362] He purposed to make a circuit of all the provinces subject to

his sway. Aly, we are told, even recommended a second _hijra_, or

transfer of the Caliph’s court to Kûfa (evidently a proleptic tradition

anticipatory of the move eventually made by Aly himself to that

capital). What induced Omar to give up the project of visiting Irâc is

not very clear. The ordinary story is that Káb the Rabbin (a Jew from

Himyar, converted about this time, who will be noticed more hereafter)

dissuaded him from it: ‘Of evil,’ he said, ‘the East hath nine parts,

and of good but one; while the dwellings of Satan and every kind of

plague are there. On the contrary, the West hath nine parts good, and

but one of evil.’ Thereupon, the tradition proceeds, Omar abandoned the

idea of visiting Irâc.

[363] _Before_, having the double meaning of ‘he is before you,’

that is, in your presence; or (as they took it) ‘in advance of you,’

and farther on the road.

[364] Shorahbîl, who had the command of the province of the Jordan

(Ordonna), was put aside as weak and unfitted for the office; or rather

his government was apparently placed under that of Amru, who was in

command of all the Holy Land. The appointment of Muâvia as the brother

of Yezîd, the late governor of Damascus, was in every way natural and

expected.

[365] For Bilâl and his office of Muedzzin, see _Life of Mahomet_,

p. 204.

[366] The male population alone, we are told, numbered 600,000. There

were 70,000 (according to others 40,000) male Jews of an age to pay the

poll tax, and 200,000 Greeks, of whom 30,000 effected their escape by

sea before the siege. The baths were 4,000 in number, the theatres 400,

and the harbour held 12,000 vessels of various size.

[367] The narrative is almost more fugitive, and the chronology less

certain, than in the case of Syria. The expedition is variously placed

at from A.H. XVI. to XXV. The earlier date is due probably to

the notion (before explained) that Amru assisted Medîna with corn in

the year of famine; the later date, to the attempt of the Greeks to

retake Alexandria, A.H. 25. The best authenticated date is

that which I have followed. The received account is this. Amru obtained

permission for the campaign from Omar at Jâbia, probably on his last

visit to Syria. When the Caliph returned to Medîna and reflected on the

seriousness of the enterprise, he repented of having allowed Amru to go

on with so small a force, and sent orders that if he had not already

entered Egypt, he was to return. Warned probably of its purport, Amru

did not open the packet till he had crossed the boundary; and so he

went forward. When Omar was informed of this he sent Zobeir with 12,000

men to reinforce him. Other accounts say that Amru’s entire force

consisted of 12,000 men, despatched from Palestine and Medîna, in

three bodies, one after another. Some stories are told, but they look

apocryphal, of Amru having visited Alexandria, before his conversion,

many years previously.

[368] For the communications of this Mucoucus with Mahomet see _Life_,

pp. 385 and 440.

[369] Memphis, in the vicinity of modern Cairo. The advance was

probably made by Salahiya up the Pelusian branch of the Nile, to the

north of Ismailia and Wolseley’s recent line of march.

[370] Later historians (whose accounts, however, bear the mark of being

apocryphal) represent the Moslem army as at one time in considerable

peril, surrounded and hemmed in at Heliopolis by the rising waters of

the Nile. Mucoucus having retired to an island on the farther side of

the Nile, broke up the bridge across it. Deputations were then sent by

boat to and fro; and the Mussulman envoys delivered speeches before

Mucoucus, exhorting and threatening the governor, much in the style

of those recited at the Persian Court before the battle of Câdesîya.

Mucoucus, who is represented as favourable to Islam, at last entered

into terms with the invaders.

[371] Heraclius died in February, A.D. 641.

[372] The tale of Amru being taken prisoner in an attack on the

outworks is not mentioned by any early authority, and seems to possess

no foundation. The story is, that when carried before the authorities,

his freedman, who had been captured with him, slapped Amru on the face,

and so deceived the Greeks into the belief that he was a common soldier

who might be set at liberty.

[373] Here again we see the same nervous fear on the part of Omar, lest

his soldiers, wandering too far, or beyond some great river, should be

surprised and cut off, as led him at the first to forbid an advance on

Persia. Ghîzeh, properly Jîzeh, j in Egypt being pronounced as hard g.

[374] This name _Câhira_, or City of the Victory, is of later date.

[375] There is here, as in respect of other countries, a great

profusion and variety of tradition, having for its object to prove that

Egypt was taken by force of arms, and could therefore be treated as a

conquered country; rather than that it capitulated, and was the subject

of treaty and stipulations. There was always a strong pressure to prove

the former, as it gave the invaders a better standing in courts of law

as against the natives, in such claims as that pressed by Zobeir.

[376] The ancient canal appears to have followed very closely the

line of the Fresh-water Canal of the present day. We are not favoured

with many particulars; but there is no doubt that during Omar’s

reign vessels did make the voyage from Cairo to the coast of Arabia,

establishing thus a regular traffic between the two countries; and

therefore the work must have been very quickly finished by the forced

labour of the teeming population.

The reader who is curious about the previous attempts to unite the

Nile with the Red Sea will find the subject discussed by Weil (vol.

i. pp. 120–122). The attempt was made so far back as the time of

Pharaoh Nechos, and subsequently by Darius, who is said to have made

communication practicable from Bubastis, on the eastern or Tanitic

estuary of the Nile, to the head of the Red Sea. A second canal was

opened, under the Ptolemies at Phacusa (Tel Fakhûs), nearer to the

Mediterranean. This (taking apparently the line of the Salahiya canal)

must have presented greater difficulties in maintaining communication

through the system of lagoons leading to the Red Sea, and so it was

too shallow to be of much use, excepting in high flood. One of these

lines (the former most probably) was eventually deepened by Trajan, and

remained navigable to the end at least of the third century of our era.

It was this canal, no doubt, which was now cleared out and deepened by

Amru. Reference is made by Weil to the following authorities: Bähr’s

_Herodotus_, vol. ii. p. 158; _Revue des Deux Mondes_, vol.

xxvii. p. 215.

[377] This tale (which is not given by our earliest authorities) is,

no doubt, based upon a custom of the Egyptians, who, as we learn from

Lane, cast, year by year, the effigy of a maiden, decked in bridal

attire, into the river, calling it ‘the Bride of the Nile.’ But whether

the tale be real or fictitious, the sentiment conveyed in it is

indicative of that virtue in the Moslem faith which carries the special

providence of God into the life of every day.

[378] Amru is said to have been so pleased with Barca as to declare

that if he had not possessed a property and home in the Hejâz, he would

have settled there.

[379] The circumstances of the siege (a strange contrast to the

bombardment, which recently crowded the horrors of months into so many

hours) are narrated with the utmost brevity; and indeed tradition very

much confuses the second siege with the first. Eutychius speaks of the

investment of the city by the Arabs lasting fourteen months. He also

tells us that George the Patriarch fled to Constantinople, and that

for ninety-seven years there was no Melchite patriarch for Egypt. A

Maronite patriarch seems to have succeeded.

I should mention that by later and less reliable authorities a long

correspondence is given as having passed between Amru and Omar, in

which the latter upbraids his lieutenant for not remitting ‘as large

a revenue as that which Egypt yielded to the Pharaohs.’ Amru resented

the imputation; whereupon Omar sent his legate, Mohammed ibn Maslama,

to set on foot an investigation into the revenues of the country; and

also superseded Amru in the government of Upper Egypt by Abdallah Ibn

Abu Sarh. The correspondence (though accepted by Weil) appears to me

altogether apocryphal. It was contrary to Omar’s character to write

in the harsh and unreasonable tone of these letters, or to press

his governors for funds at the expense of the provinces which they

administered. Nor did he stand in any urgent need of the additional

revenue, as these letters would imply; for the treasures of the world

were flowing at this time in a full tide into Medîna. As to Ibn Abu

Sarh, he did not supersede Amru till the reign of his foster-brother

Othmân.

[380] The earlier operations of Otba have been narrated above, p. 91.

[381] The ancient capital of Khuzistan, where extensive ruins and

colonnades still mark the extent and magnificence of this once regal

city. Weil doubts whether the expedition reached so far as Persepolis.

But I can only follow our authorities, who certainly represent Alâ as

advancing to its vicinity.--Weil, vol. ii. p. 87.

[382] Omar, as we shall see farther on, had an unconquerable dread of

committing his troops to the sea.

[383] Otba died the same year, A.H. 17; and Moghîra succeeded

him, as related above (somewhat prematurely), p. 91.

[384] One of the three brothers who defended Medîna in the attack on

Abu Bekr--_supra_, p. 14.

[385] Tostar, otherwise named Shuster.

[386] These conquests are variously placed by different traditions in

A.H. XVII., XIX. and even XX. They immediately preceded the

great campaign of Khorasan.

[387] Shushan, the ancient capital of Media, now called Sûs. Loftus

gives an interesting history and description of Sûs, with a picture of

the tomb of Daniel. (_Travels in Chaldæa and Susiana_, 1857, p.

322.) Our authorities say that Omar gave orders for _the body_ of

Daniel, which (as the legend goes) was still exposed to view, being

honourably interred.

Mr. Baring, Secretary of the Teheran Legation, visited the spot in

1881, and found it much altered. The conical steeple, shown in Loftus’

picture, was removed, when three or four years ago the tomb was

rebuilt; and it was then surrounded by a gallery with a railing of

brass and woodwork overlooking the river.

[388] Two thousand dirhems, the same as was given to warriors of

Câdesîya and the Yermûk. And stipends of like amount were granted to

the Persian nobles who had recently joined the Moslem army in Khuzistan.

[389] It is remarkable that one of the arguments said to have been

used, even on this late occasion, was that if the Caliph quitted Medîna

there would be a risk of the Arab tribes of the Peninsula again rising

up in apostasy and rebellion.

[390] The spies were the famous Amr ibn Mádekerib (the warrior-poet

met with before) and Toleiha. The latter (the quondam prophet of the

Beni Asad) was long in returning from his scouting expedition--so much

so that the army, becoming anxious, began to speak among themselves:

‘What if Toleiha hath apostatised the second time!’ When he made his

appearance, therefore, there was a shout of joy. Toleiha, hearing of

it, was much hurt at the imputation. ‘Even had it been the old Arab

faith,’ he said, ‘which I once professed much more this blessed faith

of Islam, I should have disdained to change it for the jargon of these

barbarians.’

[391] The battle was fought at Bowaj Rûd. Nóeim demolished the

fortifications of Rei, and laid the foundations of a new city. The

ruins of Rei, some five or six miles south-east of Teheran, are still

to be seen of considerable extent. See Porter’s _Travels in Georgia

and Persia_.

[392] The Zoroastrians must still have been numerous, especially in

the outlying provinces, even in the Abbasside reigns. The social

and political inducements brought to bear on them, and to induce

a profession of Islam that was at first but superficial, are well

brought out in ‘The Apology of Al Kindy’ (Smith and Elder, 1882). See

especially the speech of Al Mâmûn, pp. xii. and 33.

[393] It is difficult to account for the origin of so strange a tale.

It illustrates the heterogeneous materials of which our authorities are

still composed.

[394] Ascalon is stated to have fallen as late as A.H. XXIII.,

i.e. A.D. 643. If so, it must have held out so long only in

virtue of its maritime position. But we have no details.

[395] Omar presided every year, excepting the first of his Caliphate,

when the struggle with the Byzantine and Persian empires was at its

height. He is also said to have thrice visited Mecca for the Omra, or

Lesser Pilgrimage. (_Life of Mahomet_, p. xii.)

[396] The superstition attributing the cessation of the volcano to an

extraordinary dole of alms is not worse than that which seeks to check

the devastations of Vesuvius by the liquefaction of the blood of St.

Januarius in the cathedral of Naples.

[397] Omar consulted Amru on the subject, who was of the same mind, and

said--

Dûd ála ûd

Fa in yaksar al ’ûd

Halak al dûd.

‘An insect floating on a splinter; if the splinter break, the insect

perisheth;’ signifying thereby the risks of the mariner.

[398] Otba came on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and there besought Omar to

allow him to resign his government. Omar refused, and as Otba died on

his way back, the Caliph was much distressed. He visited his tomb to

pray over it, and said that he would have reproached himself as the

cause of his death--‘had it not been already written in the decrees of

the Lord.’

[399] We have met Moghîra in the lifetime of the Prophet. First at

Hodeibia, where the murder was cast in his teeth by his uncle, and

subsequently at the demolition of the great idol of Tâyif, &c. (_Life

of Mahomet_, pp. 370, 467.) He was red-haired, one-eyed, obese and

repulsive in appearance, but insinuating in manner and speech. One of

his eighty concubines, when his ill looks were mentioned, said, ‘Yes,

he is a sweet conserve but on a beggarly dish.’

The aged princess whom he demanded in marriage on the fall of Hîra, was

Hind, daughter of Nómân V. Some threescore years before she had been

married to Adi, who, when tutor to her father, had caught a glimpse of

her in the church at Hîra. Adi was executed for some offence by the

Chosroes, and Hind then retired into a convent near Hîra, called, after

her, Dâira Hind. See the strange story of Moghîra’s coarse conduct

towards her as related by M. Caussin de Perceval, vol. ii. p. 150; and

_Life of Mahomet_ (1st edition), vol. i. pp. clxxix. _et seq._

For the law of evidence on the charge of adultery, see _Life of

Mahomet_, p. 313. The whole story is significant as manifesting the

deterioration of Arab life from the ancient spirit and customs, which,

amongst the Bedouins, admitted of social intercourse between the sexes

without such scandals. The lady’s name was Omm Jamîl, of the Beni Aámir

ibn Sassâá, and is said by Tabari to have been a widow. ‘This lady used

openly to visit Moghîra and other chief men of Bussora, a custom common

amongst some of the ladies of that time.’ But the old Arab chivalry

towards the sex was rapidly disappearing under the system which raised

the slave-girl giving issue to her lord to the position of _Omm

Walad_, or freed-wife, and her children to the same legitimacy

as the children of the noble-born. This, coupled with the laxity of

divorce and re-marriage, was speedily lowering the position of the sex,

and rendered the strict use of ‘the Veil’ an absolute necessity for the

decent observances of social life; and gradually, but surely, bringing

about the wretched condition of women, together with the seclusion of

the harem, as we now find it in Moslem lands.

[400] In the action of Autâs following the field of Honein, his uncle,

who commanded, was slain; and Abu Mûsa took up the banner and routed

the enemy. He had more physical than moral courage, as we shall see at

the great Arbitration.

[401] It is not said that he punished the calumniator. What was the

fault of the girl which led to her imprisonment is not clear. Possibly

there was some scandal of undue influence over Abu Mûsa, to whom some

say she was given as a bribe by his predecessor Moghîra. As regards the

gift to the poet, Weil remarks that for a smaller offence of the same

kind, Khâlid was deposed with ignominy--which is true. This is the same

Ziâd of whom we have heard before, as the putative son of Abu Sofiân,

destined hereafter to assume a prominent position.

[402] Above, p. 166.

[403] See _Life of Mahomet_, p. 72. He was one of the friendless

converts whose freedom Abu Bekr purchased, and thus saved him from the

persecution of the Coreish.

[404] The manner in which Moghîra got hold of the secret is

characteristic of his artfulness. He perceived Jobeir in close

conference with the Caliph. Now Omar had apprised Jobeir of his

intention to appoint him Governor of Kûfa; but bade him, for the

present, to keep the matter secret. Moghîra, suspecting the truth,

sent one of his wives with a present of viands to Jobeir’s wife, who,

caught in the trap, accepted the congratulatory gift. Moghîra, thus

assured that his suspicions were well founded, hurried off to Omar,

and representing that he had got hold of a weak fellow, who could not

even keep the secret of his nomination for a day, got the appointment

(as in the text) for himself. Some say that Omar afterwards intended

to reappoint Sád (who seems to have been removed on very inadequate

grounds) to Kûfa, but that he died before he could give effect to the

intention.

[405] Sura xxviii. 4.

[406] See _Life of Mahomet_, p. 64. His height only equalled that

of an ordinary man seated.

[407] An extraordinary grant of one hundred dirhems was made to each.

The civil list and pensions were settled by Omar in his _Dewân_;

but the means of paying the allowances was by local assignments; so

that each city was dependent on its endowment, from which all the

expenditure of administration had to be met.

[408] According to some authorities, however, neither Abu Bekr nor Omar

appointed any Câdhy to Kûfa or Bussorah.

[409] The calculation was already by strictly lunar notation of months,

according to the Arab calendar; for that had been fixed by a Divine

ordinance at the Farewell Pilgrimage. (_Life of Mahomet_, p.

486.) But the commencement of the era, and numbering of the years, was

introduced only now. Note that the _i_ is short in Hegira.

[410] See _Life of Mahomet_, p. 349.

[411] Take, for example, two lines with the play on the name

_Leila_, or night--

I thought of Leila, but the heavens are between us;

Neither is her night (Leila) mine; nor my night hers.

[412] Many stories are told of Omar’s stern punishment of

wine-drinkers. The house of one who surreptitiously trafficked in

spirits, he caused to be burned over his head. Another culprit,

expelled for drinking, escaped to the Byzantine territory and

apostatised.

[413] See _The Corân: its Teaching and Precepts_, p. 61.

[414] For a description of the shameless demoralisation that prevailed,

especially among the youth of Damascus and Baghdad, I must refer to the

learned and elaborate work of H. von Kremer, _Culturgeschichte des

Orients unter dem Chalifen_.

[415] One of the wives was a captive maiden from Yemen, who, having, as

his bond-maid, borne him a son and daughter, became, _ipso facto_,

free. No mention is made of other slave-girls in his harem; but this

affords no presumption that he did not consort with such; for no

account is made of servile concubines, and they are rarely or never

mentioned, unless they chanced to bear offspring.

It was his daughter from whom the tradition is derived that he had no

special weakness for the sex, and married chiefly for the sake of issue.

[416] In the tradition both the maidens are spoken of as Omm Kolthûm;

but that must have been by anticipation, since they were so called as

having sons of that name.

[417] On one occasion Hind repaired to Syria and warned Muâvia against

giving money to his father, Abu Sofiân, who was in need, lest he should

incur the reproach of Omar and the people; and Muâvia accordingly sent

him away with only one hundred dinars. But tradition, through Abbasside

channels, begins now to take so strong and bitter a tinge of hatred

against the Omeyyad family, that tales regarding it must be received

with caution.

[418] By some authorities he was now sixty-three; but this was a

favourite age with traditionists, being that at which the Prophet died

(_supra_, p. 119). He was born before the ‘Sacrilegious War,’

which lasted ten years, A.D. 580–590 (_Life of Mahomet_,

p. 14); but his birth was probably at the end of the last great battle,

which terminated that war. This would make him twenty-six at his

conversion, and fifty-five at his death. If born at the commencement of

the war, he would now be ten years older. The true date may lie between

the two extremes; and it is not unlikely that he was near sixty years

of age at his death.

[419] Moghîra, when recently appointed to Kûfa, may have left him at

Medîna; or, more likely, he may have accompanied his master from Kûfa

to the Hejâz, it being the season of pilgrimage when the governors

presented themselves.

[420] The following story is told even by the earliest

authorities:--Káb (the converted Jewish doctor, of whom mention has

been made already) came to the Caliph and said, ‘Omar, thou hast but

three days to live.’ ‘Strange,’ said Omar, ‘for I feel quite well

and strong.’ ‘Nevertheless,’ continued Káb, ‘thus and thus I find it

foretold in the Towrât.’ Next day he came again, and told Omar he had

but two days left. After he was struck down, Káb came to visit him,

and Omar said, on this occasion, to those about him,--‘Káb spake the

truth,’ adding this couplet--

Káb warned me that in three days I should die; in the prophecy of

Káb there is no doubt;

I fear not death; and verily I am dying; but the fear of the wolf

followeth in its wake.

For _wolf_ (zeib) some read _sin_ (zanb). It is difficult to

say what can have given rise to this strange tradition. Possibly Káb,

seeing the sullen and threatening attitude of Abu Lulû, may have warned

him accordingly.

[421] It is possible that Abd al Rahmân’s subsequent renunciation of

the Caliphate in the coming conclave may have led to the tradition

of this supposed conversation with Omar; but I give the tradition as

I find it; and the facts as stated in the text are not in themselves

improbable.

[422] The selection of Soheib was, no doubt, made advisedly. It will

be remembered that Mahomet is thought to have, in a manner, pointed

out Abu Bekr as his successor by nominating him, when he was himself

laid aside, to preside at the public prayers. Soheib had, of course, no

pretensions to the office. He had been a slave at Mecca, but was much

revered because of his early conversion (_Life of Mahomet_, p.

72). So his appointment on this occasion was very suitable.

[423] A stalwart warrior. Mahomet used to say that in the field, the

voice of Abu Talha was better than a thousand men. At Honein he slew

twenty of the enemy with his own hand.

[424] Some traditions omit the words ‘Jews and Christians,’ giving thus

to the sentence a general bearing; but the mention of _covenant_

or _treaties_ would seem to imply that tribes or people were meant

other than Mahometans; and the best supported traditions are as in the

text.

[425] Backî al Gharcad

[426] There is the tradition of a long conversation between Ibn Abbâs

and Omar, in which the former pressed the _right_ of his family

to the Caliphate; and Omar answered, attributing the claim to envy.

The whole is a mere Abbasside invention; for neither Aly nor Abbâs,

nor any one of the house of Hâshim, seems even to have dreamed of any

such pretension till after the dissensions which broke out after Omar’s

death. _Fâtima_ was the only discontented person, and that, as we

have seen, was about the property left by the Prophet withheld from her

by Abu Bekr, not about any claim to the Caliphate.

[427] As in the Oriental style, the bed, or matting, was spread upon

the ground, Abdallah had but to raise his father’s head and remove it

outside the pillow; so placing it on the ground, and afterwards raising

it upon his lap.

[428] Some traditions give the date of his death three days later, i.e.

on the last day of Dzul Hijj. This, no doubt, arises from that having

been the date on which the new Caliph was chosen, and Omar’s reign

is conventionally spoken of as also lasting up to that day--the last

day of the year A.H. 23. There is another tradition that he

was wounded on Wednesday, 23rd of Dzul Hijj, and buried on the Sunday

following, i.e. on the 27th.

[429] Bilâl used to say that the only way to soothe Omar, when in a

rage, was to recite in his hearing passages from the Corân, which

invariably assuaged his wrath. This may, perhaps, have reference to the

period of his conversion, when having struck his sister, and made blood

to flow, he was moved to repentance by the reading of a Sura. (See

_Life of Mahomet_, p. 96.)

[430] Such were Abd al Rahmân, Zobeir, Othmân, Aly, and Talha. The

tradition as given by the Secretary of Wackîdy (fol. 235) may also mean

that he was unwilling to sully their name by subjecting them to the

sordid surroundings and associations of provincial government.

[431] Thus, for example, while journeying in Arabia in the year of

famine, he came upon a poor woman, seated, with her hungry and weeping

children, round a fire, whereon was an empty pot. Omar ran on to the

next village, procured bread and meat, filled the pot, and cooked an

ample meal; leaving the little ones laughing and at play.

[432] When some one proposed his son Abdallah, Omar was angry and

declared that the government had been long enough in his family.

‘Besides’ (alluding apparently to some scandal in his domestic life)

‘how could I appoint a man who was so weak as not to divorce his wife?’

They say, also, that Omar once praised Sâlim, the freedman of Hodzeifa,

slain at Yemâma, as one who would have been fit for the Caliphate--‘a

man beloved of the Prophet, and a lover of the Lord.’ But this could

only have been as a mere figure of speech.

[433] Others say that the conclave was held in the house of Miswar,

a citizen of Medîna; and that there Abd al Rahmân spent the last

decisive night in separate conference with Aly and then with Othmân.

For Micdâd, see _Life of Mahomet_, p. 239. Moghîra and Amru are

characteristically said to have sat at the door of the house to make

it appear as if they, too, had had a hand in the election. Amru had

probably come to Medîna with the other governors on pilgrimage.

[434] For the two rival families see _Life of Mahomet_, pp. xx.

and xxviii. The Electors were, in reality, selected very evenly.

Zobeir was cousin to Aly both on the father’s side and the mother’s.

Sád and Abd al Rahmân belonged to the Beni Zohra, a distant branch of

Coreishite descent. Sád, however, was likewise the nephew of Mahomet’s

mother, Amina. Some say that he voted for Othmân; others that, being

pressed by Aly, he went over to his side. Talha was of the Beni Taym,

the clan of Abu Bekr. The impartiality of Abd al Rahmân is impugned

by the partisans of Aly, as being the brother-in-law of Othmân, whose

uterine sister he married; and this probably was the relationship

hinted at by Aly in his appeal to Abd al Rahmân.

We are getting now into the full flood of Abbasside tradition, which

becomes entirely partisan and untrustworthy, with the view of exalting

the claims of the Prophet’s family and defaming the Omeyyads. Of this

class of traditions is the following:--Aly complained to Abbâs that

he was sure to be outvoted in the conclave because Sád would go with

his kinsman Abd al Rahmân, and vote for Othmân, brother-in-law of the

latter; and that then, the votes being equally divided, Abd al Rahmân

would have the casting-vote. On this Abbâs reproached Aly for having

neglected the advice, given by him now and on former occasions, to

claim the Caliphate _as his right_, and to have nothing to do

with electors or arbitration. He had told him years before to demand

the Caliphate from Mahomet, and he had neglected to do so. ‘And now,’

said Abbâs, ‘the Caliphate will leave our family for ever.’ All this is

patent fabrication.

[435] The Beni Makhzûm was a powerful branch of the Coreish, but far

removed by descent from the clan of Hâshim, and having little sympathy

with it. It was Khâlid’s tribe. To understand the taunts here bandied,

it must be remembered that Abu Sarh (his proper name is Abdallah Ibn

Abu Sarh) was the foster-brother of Othmân, and bore a bad repute (as

we shall see below) as having deceived Mahomet, and been proscribed

at the capture of Mecca. Ammâr (as has been stated before) was son of

a bond-woman called Sommeyya. See on the tradition of her martyrdom,

_Life of Mahomet_ (1st ed.), vol. ii. p. 126.

[436] The inaugural address was delivered on the 3rd Moharram or Nov.

10, the interval between the election and speech at installation being

presumably taken up in receiving the oath of allegiance from all

present at Medîna.

[437] Quoted from the Corân, Sura xii. v. 19.

[438] His attitude in discharging the invidious task was that of a

loyal and unselfish patriot. He disclaimed the Caliphate for himself.

Night and day engaged unceasingly in canvassing the sentiments of the

leading chiefs, he did his best to compose the antagonistic claims of

the selfish Electors. What was the immediate cause of his action when

in the Mosque he nominated Othmân, it is not possible to say. Abbasside

traditions assume that the cause was the conscientious scruples of Aly

in hesitating to swear that he would follow strictly the precedents of

Abu Bekr and of Omar in his conduct of the Caliphate. The Corân and the

precedent of Mahomet he would implicitly obey, but the precedent of

the first Caliphs only so far as he agreed in the same. In the tenor

of the traditions relating how Abd al Rahmân first questioned Aly and

then Othmân, and in their replies, I hardly find sufficient ground for

this assumption; and it looks very much of a piece with the Abbasside

fabrications of the day. One tradition ascribes the hesitancy of Aly to

the cunning counsel of Amru, who, beforehand, advised him not to give a

direct reply, lest Abd al Rahmân should think him too grasping; while

he advised Othmân to answer unconditionally--as if Aly were so simple

as to have been caught by such transparent guile.

[439] Aly, however, maintained his view, and sought, when he became

Caliph, to give practical effect to it. He searched for Obeidallah,

and would, we are told, have put him to death. But Obeidallah made his

escape to Syria, where he was safe under the rule of Muâvia.

[440] From this point begin the rough waters of the great cataclysm.

Tradition becomes deeply affected by faction, especially the envenomed

shafts of the party of Aly and the Abbassides, under cover of which

they built up their pretensions, and, in the end, succeeded in

supplanting the Omeyyad dynasty. The evidence, therefore, must be

received with caution as we go along.

[441] Kabul is said to have been first attacked A.H. 24. The

early Moslems seem to have been as unfortunate (perhaps as unwise) as

ourselves in their expeditions against Afghanistan, where they met with

many sad reverses.

[442] Ascalon is said to have been reduced (apparently for the first

time) just before Omar’s death, _A.H._ 23; but the delay was

purely owing to its maritime position. This excepted, Syria had for

some years been under the firm yoke of Islam.

[443] For his full name (Abdallah ibn Sád ibn Abu Sarh), see note at p.

290; but it may conveniently be abbreviated into Abu Sarh.

[444] Party spirit has, no doubt, been freely used to magnify the

offence of Abu Sarh. He is supposed to be the person alluded to in

Sura vi. 94:--‘Who is more wicked than he who saith, I will produce a

Revelation, like unto that which the Lord hath sent down?’ Vide Sale’s

note _in loco_. The circumstances as quoted there are altogether

apocryphal. He must, however, have deceived, if not betrayed, Mahomet,

in some very marked way, to have led to his proscription on the capture

of Mecca--an occasion on which the Prophet treated the inhabitants,

with but few exceptions, with mercy and even generosity. See

_Life_, p. 425. We have seen above (p. 248) that Omar is said by

some to have been dissatisfied with Amru’s administration in Egypt--so

much so, as to have superseded him partially by appointing Abu Sarh

to the command in Upper Egypt. The evidence of Omar’s disapproval of

Amru is imperfect, but there is no doubt that he appointed Abu Sarh

to Egypt, and that Othmân on his accession found him already in power

there.

[445] This is all we are told by Ibn al Athîr. But there is elsewhere

a not unlikely tradition that the unhappy maiden, tearing herself from

her captor’s embrace, leapt from the camel, and found in death an

escape from her humiliation. This campaign furnishes plentiful material

for many still wilder stories in the romances of the pseudo-Wâckidy and

later writers.

[446] According to some authorities, Othmân presented the royal share

of the booty as a free gift to Merwân, and they add that this was one

of the grounds of Othmân’s impeachment. But it reads like a party

calumny.

[447] Coming there in disguise, he was recognised by a woman, who

gave the alarm, and the natives rushed upon the boat. Asked how

she recognised the Saracen captain, this woman said, ‘He came as a

merchantman; but when I asked an alms of him, he gave as a prince

giveth; so I knew it was the captain of the Saracens.’

The payment of _jazia_, or poll-tax, implied the corresponding

claim of protection. _Zimmy_ signifies one who, so assessed,

becomes part and parcel of the Moslem empire, and as such entitled to

its guardianship. The Cypriots were not expected, from their position,

to take any active part on the Moslem side; but they were bound to give

their new masters warning of any hostile expedition, and generally to

facilitate their naval operations.

As the great crowd of prisoners were being shipped, one of the Moslem

warriors wept; for, said he, ‘those captives will lead the hearts of

their masters astray’--one of the few occasions on which we see a faint

perception of the evils of female slavery to the conquerors themselves;

for that I take to be the meaning.

[448] According to Theophanes, it was Constans II., grandson of

Heraclius, who perished thus for his crimes, but at a later date. See

Gibbon, ch. xlviii.

[449] Some authorities make the discontent to arise in consequence of

the failure of Abu Sarh to follow up the victory, and give chase to the

retiring enemy.

[450] See _Life of Mahomet_, p. 235.

[451] Abbasside tales are multiplied against the unfortunate Welîd.

He consorted with the poet Abu Zobeid, a converted Christian of the

Beni Taghlib, and was suspected of drinking wine in company with him.

Another complaint was, that a conjuring Jew from Baghdad having been

condemned in Ibn Masûd’s court for witchcraft, Jondob, one of the

factious leaders, killed him with his own hand instead of waiting the

regular course of execution; for which unlawful act Welîd imprisoned

Jondob, to the great discontent of the people. Hostile tradition, by

deep colouring, has improved on these tales, representing Welîd as

a brutal sot and sacrilegist. _E.g._ by his command, the Jew

performed works of magic in the sacred precincts of the Great Mosque,

assumed by sorcery the form of various animals, cut off a man’s

head, and then putting it on, brought him to life again, &c. Jondob,

scandalised at his devilish tricks, proceeded to cut off the Jew’s

head, saying, ‘If thou canst do miracles, then bring thyself to life

again.’ Upon this Welîd imprisoned Jondob, and would have put him to

death had he not, by the connivance of the jailor, escaped. These tales

are given by Masûdi and later writers, whose tendency to vilify Welîd

by the most extravagant fiction, is manifest.

Of the same complexion are the traditions which represent the citizens

of Medîna as in such bodily fear of Othmân that no one dared to carry

out the sentence of scourging against Welîd; so that Aly, at last,

stepped forward, and himself inflicted the stripes. Others say that Aly

ordered his son, Hasan, to do so; but he refused, saying, ‘The lord of

the _hot_ is lord also of the _cold_’ (_i.e._ the sweets

and the bitter of office must go together), and that then Aly compelled

a grandson of Abu Tâlib (Mahomet’s uncle) to carry out the sentence.

[452] His name was Abdallah, but to distinguish him from the multitude

of that name, he is always called Ibn Aámir.

[453] The youth, however, was not satisfied with this pair of wives;

for he left twenty sons, and as many daughters, behind him. He was

nephew of that Khâlid ibn Saîd who opened the Syrian campaign so

ingloriously.

[454] On the text of the Corân, and the history of this recension,

see the Excursus on the ‘Sources for the Biography of Mahomet,’ in

the _Life of Mahomet_. The manner in which the Abbasside faction

perverted the facts and turned the charge to malignant purpose against

the Omeyyad house, will be understood from the section on the Corân in

the _Apology of Al Kindy_ (Smith and Elder, 1882), pp. 25 _et

seq._ The charge against Al Hajjâj of having altered the text is

equally groundless. See _Ibid._ p. xi.

[455] The precise nature of the arrangement, as stated by Ibn al Athîr,

is not very clear, but its general character seems to have been as

given the text.

[456] Masûdy, an unprejudiced witness, dwells on this as one of the

causes of demoralisation and disloyalty now setting in so rapidly, and

he gives some remarkable instances. _Zobeir_ had 1,000 slaves,

male and female, and 1,000 horses. At all the great cities he had

palaces, and the one at Bussorah was still to be seen in the fourth

century. His landed estate in Irâc was rated at 1,000 golden pieces

a day. _Abd al Rahmân_ had 1,000 camels, 10,000 sheep, and 100

horses, and he left property valued at between three and four hundred

thousand dinars. _Zeid_ left gold and silver in great ingots, and

had land valued at 10,000 dinars.

The Coreishite nobles built themselves grand palaces in Mecca and

Medîna, and in their environs such as Jorf and Ackîck. Othmân himself

had a splendid palace at Medîna, with marble pillars, walls of costly

stucco, grand gates and gardens; he is also said to have amassed vast

treasures, though we are not told what came of them after his overthrow.

Masûdy contrasts painfully all this luxury at home and abroad with

the frugal severity that prevailed even in the Caliphate of Omar, who

grudged to spend sixteen dinars on the pilgrimage to Mecca.

[457] Quoting from the Corân (Sura ix. 36), where these words are

applied to Christian priests and monks; but Abu Dzarr gives them here

a more general application. See _Life of Mahomet_, p. 470; and

Sprenger’s _Leben des Mohammeds_, vol. ii. p. cvi.

[458] Attempts are made by Abbasside tradition to show that Abu Dzarr

was driven into opposition by the tyranny of Muâvia’s rule in Syria,

and by divers ungodly practices at Medîna, which he denounced as

certain to bring down judgment on the city. But Ibn al Athîr justly

doubts this, and distinctly says that his preaching tended to excite

the poor against the rich. Abu Dzarr’s doctrines were based on the

equality of all believers; and the danger lay in their popularity with

the socialistic faction which decried the pretensions of the Coreish.

Before Muâvia, he reasoned thus: ‘_Riches_, ye say, _are the

Lord’s_; and thereby ye frustrate the people’s right therein; for

the Lord hath given them to his people.’ ‘Out upon thee!’ replied

Muâvia; ‘what is this but a quibble of words? Are we not all of us the

Lord’s people, and the riches belong unto the same?’ Tradition dwells

on the poverty of Abu Dzarr’s life at Rabadza to add point to Othmân’s

unkind treatment. The Beni Ghifâr, his tribe, are said to have resented

his ill-treatment by joining the insurgents when they appeared.

[459] On this subject historians say very little; and it is chiefly

from incidental notices in fragments of early poetry that Von Kremer

has so ably traced the inroads of profligacy and the practice of

forbidden pastimes--music, wine, and gambling. The brief notice of

Ibn al Athîr on this matter is as follows: ‘The prevalence of a

worldly spirit first showed itself at Medîna in the flying of doves

and shooting with pellets (with a gaming aim); and in the eighth year

of his Caliphate Othmân appointed an officer to stop the same, who

clipped the birds’ wings, and broke the cross-bows.’ A citizen was

rebuked by the Caliph for playing at ‘oranges’ (apparently some game of

chance); and he thereupon got angry and joined the hostile party. The

anti-Omeyyad tendency of the tradition on this subject is evident from

_Welîd_ (the drunkard) being named as the person employed by the

Caliph to administer the rebuke.

[460] As enlarged by Othmân, the Mosque was 160 cubits long, and 150

broad. As in Omar’s time, it had six gates for entrance.

[461] Othmân defended his innovations as based on the practice of the

pilgrims from Yemen, who recited additional prayers on behalf of their

distant homes; and he too (he said) had a property at Tâyif, as well

as at Mecca. The matter seems at first sight altogether insignificant.

But in an established ritual, the smaller the change, the greater

oftentimes the scandal and indignation, as we need not go far to

see. And although no point of doctrine was apparently involved, yet

the practice of the Prophet had come to be regarded as an obligatory

precedent in the commonest matters of daily life.

[462] For Abu Hodzeifa, see _Life of Mahomet_, p. 65. He left his

infant son to be brought up by Othmân, who faithfully discharged the

trust. When he grew up he asked for a government or military command,

but was told that he was not yet fit for it, and must prove his

capacity in the wars of Egypt and Africa. He never forgot the slight,

and was active in the insurgent ranks. Various other examples are given

of personal enmity, such as citizens alienated by the reprimand for

gaming, a chief imprisoned for the ill-treatment of a Christian tribe,

whose favourite hound he had killed, and so on.

[463] The well was at the distance of two miles from the city. Another

well, called Rûma, was bought by Othmân, during the Prophet’s lifetime,

from the Jews for the use of the Moslems. He first purchased the half

title, the well being used day about by either party; but on their

alternate days the Mussulmans emptied the well of enough water to

last them two days. Whereupon the Jewish owner insisted on Othmân’s

purchasing the entire right, which he did; and Mahomet promised him a

fountain in Paradise for the same.

[464] For traditions regarding Mahomet’s ring, see _Life of

Mahomet_, pp. 544 and 596. The despatches sent by him to the several

kings in the eighth year of the Hegira were attested by it. The most

received account is that the legend on it was ‘Mahomet, Prophet of

God’ (_Mohammed Rasûl Allah_, in three lines, beginning from the

bottom). It was used for all documents requiring a seal, by Mahomet

and his successors. The new ring disappeared at the time of Othmân’s

assassination, and, like the original, was never seen again.

[465] One of the four wives who survived him was Omm al Banîn, daughter

of the famous freebooter, Oyeina. Othmân had thirteen children, and (so

far as we read) no issue by slave-girls, which, looking to the habits

of the time, is somewhat remarkable.

[466] The name of this demagogue was Abdallah ibn Saba, but he was

usually called Ibn Sauda, and was supposed to come from Yemen. It is

notable that this first sect of Alyites (if it can be so called) was

founded by a Jewish convert. What led him (if the story of his teaching

be not altogether a proleptic fiction of tradition) to magnify Aly,

who had hitherto put forth no claim, nor indeed at any time dreamed

of the extravagant pretensions in store for him after his death, it

is difficult to understand. Nor did these transcendental notions

regarding Aly gain any ground whatever till a much later period. Ibn

Sauda had evidently imbibed some extreme notions on the dignity of

prophets. ‘Strange,’ he is reported to have said;--‘strange that men

should believe in the second coming of the Messiah, and not in that

of Mahomet.’ The idea, we are told, was inspired by the verse in Sura

xxviii. v. 84, ‘Verily, he who hath given thee the Corân will surely

bring thee back again;’ which, of course, referred only to Mahomet’s

returning again to Mecca. Indeed, the whole account of this man’s

teaching is obscure and uncertain; and the Alyite notices of it may be

altogether anticipatory and unreal.

[467] The youth and his father belonged to the Beni Asad. On hearing of

the riot, Toleiha (the _quondam_ prophet), chief of that tribe,

hastened with a body of his men to the palace for their rescue; but

found that both had escaped half dead.

Another version is, that on Saîd’s giving expression to the sentiment

about ‘the Sawâd being the Garden of the Coreish,’ the whole company

sprang to their feet and shouted excitedly: ‘Nay, but the Lord hath

given the Sawâd to us and to our swords.’ On this, the captain of the

body-guard retorted angrily at their rude reception of his master’s

words; whereupon they set upon him and left him half dead. The

inflammable material was all around, and wanted only the spark to

explode. This unfortunate speech about ‘the Garden of the Coreish’ was

in the mouths of the disaffected all through the insurrection.

[468] The chief amongst them was Mâlik al Ashtar, of whom we shall

hear more as the most sanguinary amongst the traitors; Zeid ibn Sohan;

Jondob (already noticed); Orwa; and Thâbit ibn Cays. Yezîd, a brother

of the last, another chief leader of sedition, was not sent. Muâvia

wrote to Othmân that they were an ignorant crew, bent on sedition, and

on _getting possession of the property of the Zimmies_, that is

of the subject races, whose rights of occupancy had been recognised as

the hereditary tenants of the Sawâd--a policy, as we have seen, firmly

upheld by Omar throughout Chaldæa, and which it was one object of the

malcontents to upset. According to one account, the exiles were sent

back by Muâvia, after expressing penitence, at once to Kûfa--where,

however, resuming their factious courses, Othmân, as a last resource,

despatched them again to Syria, this time to Abdallah, Khâlid’s son, at

Hims. Muâvia is throughout represented as _upholding the claims of

the Coreish_ against the Arab faction, showing thus the real aim of

the ringleaders.

A story is told that the exiles, enraged at the menaces of Muâvia,

leaped upon him and seized him by the beard; whereupon, shaking them

off, he warned them that they knew little of the loyal spirit of the

Syrians, who, if they only saw what they were doing, would be so

enraged that it would be out of his power to save their lives.

[469] Only two or three names are given of those who kept aloof from

seditious action: as Zeid ibn Thâbit (the collector of the Corân);

Hassân, the poet, his brother; Káb ibn Mâlik, and Abu Oseid--all

natives of Medîna; so that the whole body of Refugees (the Coreish),

excepting Othmân’s immediate kinsmen, must have joined the treasonable

faction.

[470] No doubt Aly spoke the truth. Yet Othmân’s weakness towards the

seditious populace was a far greater peril than his tender treatment of

his governors.

[471] I have given all this as I find it in tradition, but not without

some misgiving; especially of the part about Merwân, whom, as the evil

genius of Othmân, the Abbasside writers are never weary of abusing.

[472] Amru, who had become a petulant malcontent ever since his

deposition, is represented as speaking contumeliously of Othmân to

his very face; and Othmân is represented as returning it in kind,

calling him ‘a louse in his garments.’ On one occasion the Caliph is

said to have addressed the people, ‘leaning on the staff of Mahomet’

(a venerable relic that had descended from the Prophet to Abu Bekr

and Omar), when an Arab seized and broke it over Othmân’s head. Such

stories, however much they may be tinged with Abbasside exaggeration

and prejudice, point to the fact that Othmân was falling rapidly in

popular esteem.

[473] The four were Mohammed ibn Maslama, often employed by Omar, as

he had been by Mahomet himself, on confidential missions; Osâma ibn

Zeid, commander of the Syrian expedition at Mahomet’s death; Abdallah,

son of Omar; and Ammâr, whose injudicious appointment by Omar to the

governorship of Kûfa appears to have turned his head, for he fell into

the conspirators’ toils.

[474] We have abundance of conversations professing to have passed

between Othmân and his advisers; but they have no further authority

than as they represent the sentiments conventionally attributed to

the several speakers. As, however, it may give point to the crisis

now rapidly approaching, I subjoin the following epitome of the most

received account:--

_Othmân_: ‘Alas, alas! what is all this I hear of you, my deputies

and governors? I greatly fear that the complaints may be true; and

it is upon me the burden falleth.’ They replied that the Caliph had

sent his own men out to see, and they had found nothing wrong. Then he

asked what they advised him to do. _Sád_ (ex-governor of Kûfa)

would have the traitors, who were burrowing in the dark, unearthed and

slain; then sedition would subside. _Muâvia_: ‘In Syria there is

no disaffection, and it would be everywhere the same were the people

fairly and firmly dealt with.’ _Abu Sarh_ proposed to work through

the Dewân, increasing or diminishing stipends by way of reward and

punishment. _Ibn Aámir_ advised to engage the restless spirits in

war, and so the crisis would pass over. _Amru_, embittered by his

supersession in Egypt, is represented as addressing Othmân in coarse

abuse. Othmân replied despondingly:--‘Cruel measures he would not

sanction. If rebellion was to come, no one should, at the least, have

that to say against him. The millstone would grind round and round to

the bitter end. Good had it been, if before it began to revolve, he had

been taken to his rest. There was nought left for him but to be quiet

and to see that no wrong was done to anyone.’ So he gave the governors

leave to depart, saying only that if fresh campaigns were set on foot,

he would approve of that; otherwise he would hold on his way.

As they took their leave, Káb, the Jewish convert, said, ‘It will be

the grey mule that wins,’ meaning Muâvia, who overheard the saying and

from that moment (so the tradition runs) kept the Caliphate in view.

Another scene is represented, in which Othmân, surrounded by his own

advisers, sends for Aly, Zobeir, and Talha. Muâvia pleaded before them

the cause of the aged Caliph, and warned them of the danger they ran

to their own selves in allowing any attack calculated to abate the

sacredness of the Caliph’s person; it was, he said, both their duty

and their interest to support him in his feeble old age. On this,

Aly reproached Muâvia as the son of Hind, the ‘chewer of Hamza’s

liver.’ ‘Let alone my mother,’ he responded angrily; ‘she became a

good believer, and after that was not a whit behind thine own.’ Othmân

interposed: ‘My cousin Muâvia doth speak the truth. Now tell me wherein

I have gone astray, and I will amend my ways. It may be that I have

been too open-handed towards my kinsmen. Take back that which they have

received.’ So Abu Sarh disgorged 50,000 dirhems; and Merwân 15,000, and

they all departed for the moment satisfied.

But all these accounts must be received with suspicion. In the midst

of such violent factions as were springing up, the marvel is that

tradition has preserved so consistent a narrative as we have.

[475] Adapting the words from Sura xxxix. v. 39.

[476] For the Lesser Pilgrimage, or Omra, see _Life of Mahomet_,

p. xii. It may be performed in any month of the year, but preferably

in Rajab (three months earlier than the commonly received date of the

attack, which I have followed); and some traditions accordingly give

this as the date of the advance upon Medîna. That, however, would make

the interval (from January to May) too long for the intervening events,

which were hurried through within the period of a couple of months, if

so long.

[477] See above, p. 313.

[478] The men of Kûfa pitched at Al Awas; the Bussorah party at

Dzu Khashab; the Egyptians at Dzu Marwa--all places in the close

neighbourhood of the city.

[479] They marched off, we are told, expecting that the citizens

would break up their armed gathering as soon as they were gone, and

concerting to return again each from their separate road.

[480] The history of the document is obscure. On the one hand, it

certainly was sealed with the Caliph’s signet; but who affixed the

seal, and whether it was surreptitiously obtained, cannot be told.

Nobody alleges Othmân’s complicity. Most traditions attribute the

writing and sealing of the order to Merwân, the Caliph’s unpopular

cousin, who, throughout the narrative, receives constant abuse as the

author of Othmân’s troubles; but all this is manifestly tinged by

Abbasside and anti-Omeyyad prejudice. Aly’s objection of collusion

between the three insurgent bodies appears unanswerable. There must

have been some preconcerted scheme as to the simultaneous return of the

three camps; and there is a strong presumption of something unfair as

regards the document also. Amidst conflicting evidence, it is beyond

the historian’s power to offer any conclusive explanation. It is, of

course, possible that Merwân may have taken upon himself the issue and

despatch of the rescript; and, indeed, there was not wanting ground

for his venturing on such a course (and something perhaps also to be

said for his doing it unknown to Othmân), excepting only the deception

of the insurgents by false promises. The insurgents may also have got

scent of the document before they started ostensibly with the purpose

of returning home. But these are all mere assumptions.

The Persian version of Tabari has a different story, namely, that the

Egyptian band, on seizing the document, turned their faces back again

towards Medîna, despatching at the same time messengers to apprise the

Kûfa and Bussorah bands of Othmân’s treachery, and to recall them, so

that all should reach Medîna and join in the attack together. Neither

Ibn al Athîr nor Ibn Khallicân have anything to this effect, and it is

hardly consistent with Aly’s speech, noticed above. The Arabic original

of Tabari, now being published, may possibly throw further light on

this chapter.

[481] Mohammed ibn Maslama, a Companion (as we have seen) highly

trusted both by Mahomet and his successors; and Zeid ibn Thâbit, the

collector of the Corân, tried to speak in confirmation of what Othmân

had said, but were violently silenced and abused by the rebels Hakam

ibn Jabala and Mohammed ibn Coteira.

[482] There are traditions, but of an entirely Abbasside stamp, of

other interviews between Aly and the Caliph, with repeated promises

of the latter to amend; Aly recriminating that these promises were no

sooner made, even from the pulpit and before the congregation, than

under the baneful influence of Merwân they were broken. Even Nâila,

his wife, is represented as blaming her weak-minded husband for his

fickleness. But were all this true, it would go but a little way to

relieve Aly, Zobeir, and Talha from the charge of desertion, or, worse,

of treasonable collusion with rebels against the rightful monarch--a

short-sighted policy even in their own interest.

[483] He is called Al Ghâficky, the ‘Ameer,’ or Commander of the

insurgents.

[484] According to some traditions, we are told, that Othmân prevailed

on Aly to procure for him a three days’ truce, under the pretence of

issuing orders to the governors for a reform of the administration; and

that he treacherously employed the time instead in strengthening the

defences, and excused himself by saying that the time was too short

to carry out the promised reforms. But the story is altogether of the

Abbasside type.

[485] The authorities are conflicting as to the length of the siege,

though the several stages of the attack and investment are sufficiently

well defined. After the first uproar Othmân still presided at the

daily prayers for thirty days, after which he was besieged for forty

days--that is ten weeks in all. Another tradition is that after the

blockade had lasted eight and forty days, tidings of coming succour

reached the city, and then the investment became severe. But this would

leave too long an interval--namely, three weeks--between the report of

help being on its way and the final issue, before which the columns,

hurrying from Syria and Bussorah, should have had ample time to arrive

at Medîna. The Syrian column, we are told, reached as far as Wâdy al

Cora, and that from Bussorah as far as Rabadza, when they heard that

all was over, and accordingly turned back.

[486] The talk among the courtiers of Al Mâmûn, in the third century,

as reflected in the _Apology of Al Kindy_, was that Aly, even at

a much earlier period, contemplated the putting of Othmân to death

(_Apology_, p. 25). There seems to be no proof or presumption of

this; but anyhow, one cannot but feel indignant at the attitude of Aly,

who would do so much and no more; who sent his son to join the Caliph’s

guard at the palace gate, and was scandalised at his being denied water

to drink; and yet would not so much as raise a finger to save his life.

We have also traditions in which Othmân is represented as reproaching

Talha for encouraging the insurgents to a more strict enforcement of

the blockade; but, whatever his demerits in deserting the Caliph, this

seems incredible. The ordinary account is that Talha as well as Zobeir,

on hearing of the rebel excesses, kept to his house; others, again, say

that they both quitted Medîna.

Omm Habîba, as daughter of Abu Sofiân, naturally sympathised with

Othmân. Hantzala, one of the citizens of Kûfa who had accompanied the

insurgents, was so indignant at their treatment of one of ‘the Mothers

of the Faithful,’ that he went off to his home, and there gave vent

to his feelings in verses expressive of his horror at the scenes his

comrades were enacting at Medîna.

One day, we are told, Othmân, goaded by the thirst of himself and his

household, ascended the roof, and cried aloud: ‘Ye men! know ye that I

bought the well Rûma, and furnished it with gear that the Moslems might

quench their thirst thereat? and now ye will not let me have one drop

to quench my thirst. Moreover, I builded you such and such a mosque;

and now ye hinder me from going forth to say my prayers in the Great

Mosque.’ And so on, contrasting the various benefits he had conferred

upon them, and the kind and loving words the Prophet used to address to

him, with the cruel treatment he was now receiving; whereat the hearts

of all were softened, and the word was passed round to hold back from

pressing the attack. But Ashtar, the rebel, said, ‘He is but playing

with you and practising deceit,’ and so he resumed the attack. There

are many such traditions, but they seem to possess little authority.

[487] The pilgrims, in order to reach Mecca in time for the pilgrimage

(beginning on the 8th of Dzul Hijj, June 7), must have left Medîna a

week or ten days previously; that is, some three weeks before the final

attack on the palace.

[488] The one killed was Moghîra, a Thackîfite from Tâyif. He was a

confederate of the Beni Zohra, the same who had persuaded that clan to

retire from the Coreishite army when it marched forth to attack Mahomet

at Bedr (_Life of Mahomet_, p. 228).

Merwân received a sword-cut, which severed one of the tendons of

the neck, and left him, when he recovered, with his neck stiff and

shortened. The rebels were about to despatch him when his foster-mother

cried out: ‘Do ye seek to kill him? he is dead already; if ye would

sport with and mutilate his body, that were inhuman and unlawful.’ So

they left him. In after days, when Merwân came to power, he showed his

gratitude to this woman by giving her son a command.

[489] The blood, we are told, flowed down the leaves just touching

these words: ‘If they rebel, surely they are schismatics; thy Lord will

swiftly avenge you.’ (Sura ii. v. 138.) The appropriateness of the

text, however, may of itself have suggested the story.

When the insurgents first rushed in, he was at the moment reading the

appropriate passage in Sura iii. v. 174. Referring to the battle of

Ohod, and the danger in which Medîna was then placed, the disaffected

citizens are there represented as taunting Mahomet and his followers

in these words: ‘_Verily, the men (of Mecca) have gathered forces

against you; wherefore, be afraid of the same_. But (the taunt) only

increased their faith, and they said: _The Lord sufficeth for us; He

is the best Protector_.’ This was a favourite text of Othmân’s, and

he may perhaps have turned to it for comfort now that vain was the help

of man.

[490] The actual murderers were Al Ghâficky, the leader, and Sudân, who

was himself killed. Kinâna ibn Bishr is also named. All these belonged

to the Egyptian band, which seems to have contained the most rabid

of the insurgents. Amr ibn al Hamac leapt upon the body, hardly yet

breathless, and inflicted nine wounds--‘three for the Lord’s cause, and

six to satisfy his own passion.’

[491] These two were among the chief men ‘whose hearts were gained

over’ by largesses from the booty after the battle of Honein.--_Life

of Mahomet_, p. 436. Hakîm is frequently mentioned in the Prophet’s

biography. It was Hakîm who carried supplies to his aunt Khadîja when

shut up with Mahomet in the Sheb.--_Life_, p. 100.

It is said that a party of the citizens of Medîna made an attempt to

stop the funeral, but desisted on seeing that a tumult would arise. We

are also told that Aly himself, on hearing of the design to molest the

procession and cast stones at the mourners, did his best to prevent it.

Indeed, Abbasside tradition abounds with attempts to rescue the memory

of Aly from the obloquy attaching to the heartless part he had been

acting. For example, Masûdy gives us a tradition that when Aly heard

that all was over he hastened to the palace and asked his son how it

had happened--as though he could not for many days have foreseen the

fatal termination to which the blockade was tending!

[492] The field was called Hashh Kaukab--the Garden of the Star.

[493] My impression, on the whole, is that it was an afterthought.

The narrative of those who side with Talha and Zobeir is as follows:

After Othmân’s death the city was for some days in the hands of the

insurgents. No one ventured to accept the Caliphate. Sád and Zobeir

had already quitted the city; and all the members of the Omeyya

clan who were able had effected their escape to Mecca. The rebels

themselves were at their wits’ ends: ‘If we quit Medîna,’ they said,

‘and no Caliph is appointed, anarchy will burst forth everywhere.

It appertaineth unto you (addressing the men of Medîna) to appoint

a Caliph. Wherefore look ye out a man for the throne, and make him

Caliph. We give you one day’s grace for the same. If ye choose him,

well; but if not, then we shall slay Aly, Zobeir, and Talha, as well

as a great number of you.’ Alarmed at these threats, the leading

citizens repaired to Aly, who, at first, bade them seek another; but

they constrained him; and, as a last resource, to rid them of the

insurgents, he consented. Then they drew Zobeir (who, by this time, had

returned) and Talha to the Mosque, and forced them, at the point of the

sword, to swear.

It seems certain that the rebels of Kûfa and Bussorah were in favour

respectively of Zobeir and Talha; but that they were induced to accept

Aly, either through fear (as the partisans of the two pretenders hold)

of the Egyptian regicides, or because the citizens made choice of Aly.

[494] Thus Sád, the conqueror of Irâc, refused to swear till all else

had done so; whereupon, Ashtar, head of the conspirators from Kûfa,

threatened to behead him; but Aly said, ‘Leave him alone; I will be

surety for him.’ Moghîra, also, and a company of the late Caliph’s

adherents, declined to swear, and were left unmolested. Amongst them

was Hassân, the poet, and his brother Zeid (collector of the Corân),

whom Othmân had appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of the latter,

it is said that when Othmân was first attacked, he cried to his

fellow-citizens, ‘Ye men of Medîna, be ye _Ansârs_ (Helpers) _of

the Lord_ for the second time, even as ye were Ansârs of His Prophet

at the first.’ But Abu Ayûb, another of the citizens, made answer and

said, ‘Verily, he shall get no help from us. Let the multitude of his

train-band slaves be his _Ansârs_!’

[495] This servile population (Sabâya or ‘captives’) had been pouring

for years in a continuous stream, during the campaigns, into Medîna.

They were employed as domestic servants, warders, body-guards, &c. Some

followed trades, in quasi-freedom, paying the profits to their masters.

They mostly embraced the Moslem faith because of the privileges it

conferred. On the outbreak they became insubordinate, and broke away

into a defiant attitude. This would occur the more readily as they

formed the guards of the treasury and mansions of the great men; and,

being the only trained force at Medîna, no doubt themselves felt their

power. We find them similarly taking part in the outbreak at Bussorah.

Like the Janissaries or Memlûk of later days, they were a petulant

brood. Immediately on homage being done to Aly, they are said to have

lampooned him in minatory verses, to which Aly (not to be outdone by

the poetry even of slaves) replied in extempore couplets. Proclamation

was made that slaves not returning to their masters would be treated as

outlaws, but it had no effect.

[496] The tradition runs that Moghîra, at the first, gave sound and

sincere advice to this effect; but that, finding Aly obstinately

opposed to it, he returned next day, saying that, on reflection, he

had changed his mind. When Ibn Abbâs came, Aly told him that Moghîra

had, at the first, attempted to deceive him, but on the second day had

spoken true, and advised him to put in his own men. ‘Not so,’ said Ibn

Abbâs; ‘just the reverse. It was the truth which he spake at the first;

the last was not his true opinion.’ And so it turned out; for Moghîra,

finding his advice disregarded, departed to join the malcontents at

Mecca

[497] _Life of Mahomet_, pp. 324 and 527.

[498] I have given this conference fully, because, in substance at

least, it shows the impracticable bent of Aly’s mind which quickly

drew on the civil war. It is also not unlikely in itself. The purport

of such a conversation would become known; and, moreover, besides this

and one or two other uncertain conversations, we have little or nothing

to explain the early events of Aly’s Caliphate, and the motives which

actuated him.

[499] Amru, it is said, pressed this course upon Muâvia, saying, in his

proverbial style, ‘Show the dam her foal, it will stir her bowels.’

[500] The officers appointed were his cousin Abdallah ibn Abbâs, a

faithful adherent, and his brother Cutham; Omar, son of Abu Salma

(half-brother of Omm Salma, the Prophet’s widow); Abu Leila, nephew of

Abu Obeida; Aly’s own son Mohammed, son of his Hanifite wife, &c.

[501] For this passage in the Prophet’s life see _Life of

Mahomet_, pp. 311 _et seq._

[502] We are treading now on specially factious ground, and have to

weigh with care the bias of tradition which represents Ayesha as

suddenly converted from a deadly enemy of Othmân into the champion

of his memory. Thus, when, on receiving the tidings of the murder

on the way back from Mecca, she declared that she would avenge his

death: ‘What!’ cried her informant, startled by her zeal; ‘is this

thy speech now, whilst but yesterday thou wast foremost to press the

attack upon him as an apostate?’ ‘Yea,’ she replied; ‘but even now

he repented him of that which they laid to his charge, and yet after

that they slew him.’ In reply, her informant recited these verses:

‘Thou wast the first to foment the discontent. Thou commandedst us to

slay the prince for his apostasy, and now, &c.’ How far this has been

invented (possibly as a foil to Aly’s equally strange and inconsistent

conduct), or whether the inconsistency in Ayesha’s conduct was really

as strange as here represented, it is difficult to say. Anyhow, it must

be admitted that Ayesha was a jealous, violent, intriguing woman, a

character that may well account for much that would otherwise appear

strange.

[503] This famous camel is an object of special interest to tradition.

Some say it was bought for Ayesha in Yemen; others, that it belonged

to the Orni guide who piloted the expedition; and that, in addition to

a large sum for his services, he got the camel purchased for Ayesha in

exchange for his own.

[504] The women of Mecca accompanied Ayesha as far as Dzât Ire. Some of

Mahomet’s widows may have been at Mecca just then for the pilgrimage,

and, in the present troubled state of Medîna, they may have preferred

to stay on there. Perhaps some of them may have settled permanently in

the Holy City, On the other hand, we know from a previous notice that

Omm Habîba, at any rate, still resided at Medîna.

[505] Saîd inquired of Talha and Zobeir which of them was to be the

Caliph. ‘Whichever,’ was the answer, ‘the people may choose.’ ‘But,’

replied Saîd, ‘if ye go forth as the avengers of the blood of Othmân,

then the succession should of right devolve upon his sons,’ two of whom

were with the rebel force. ‘That,’ they answered, ‘it will be for the

chief men of Medîna eventually to settle amongst them.’

[506] Meaning Talha and Zobeir themselves, and intimating that these

had had as much hand in fomenting the insurrection, and were as

responsible for its fatal result, as anybody else.

[507] Omm al Fadhl.

[508] The incident is adduced to show the alarm of Aly. He had sent

for Abdallah, Omar’s son, who declined to pledge himself to join the

army against the rebels of Bussorah till he saw what the other citizens

of Medîna did. On this he prepared to leave for Mecca, assuring his

stepmother (Aly’s daughter) that he meant to keep aloof from the

rebels, which he did.

[509] This column, which was got up in haste and with difficulty (for

there was no enthusiasm at any time for Aly), was composed chiefly of

men belonging to Kûfa and Bussorah in Aly’s interest. What these were

doing then at Medîna does not appear.

[510] The commander of the first campaign after Mahomet’s death.

[511] Only one man of the band from Bussorah that attacked Othmân, the

warrior Horcûs, escaped, at the intercession of the Beni Sád.

[512] Abu Mûsa, Governor of Kûfa, abused Ammâr, the envoy of Aly,

as a murderer. When urged by Hasan (whom on his arrival he embraced

affectionately) to support his father in putting down the dissension

that rent the people, Abu Mûsa replied that he had heard the Prophet

say that ‘in the event of sedition, walking was better than riding,

standing better than walking, and sitting better than either.’ He

exhorted the citizens, therefore, to adopt this maxim, and, following

the example of the Coreish, to sit still at home;--‘if they studied

their eternal interests, they would do this; if only their temporal

interests, they would go forth and fight.’ A tumult arose; the palace

was sacked, and he was deposed.

Hasan, spite of his want of ambition, must have managed the business

well, especially after the failure of the previous deputations, which

consisted of such able men as Mohammed, son of Abu Bekr, the sons of

Abbâs and Jafar, and Ashtar the arch-regicide.

The spiritless _rôle_ assigned by tradition to Hasan is illustrated

by a conversation which passed between him and his father at Dzu Câr.

_Hasan_: ‘Thou hast ever neglected my advice, my father, and now thou

wilt be deserted all round, and slain.’ _Aly_: ‘And thou never ceasest

whining like a girl. What advice of thine have I not followed?’ Hasan

replied that his father should have quitted Medîna before Othmân was

slain; after the murder, he should not have accepted the Caliphate till

the provinces had agreed in his nomination; and now that Talha and

Zobeir had risen up, he should have stayed at home, and let them take

the first offensive step. To the first point Aly answered that at the

time he was himself besieged, and could not, even if he had so wished,

escape from Medîna; that he had been regularly elected, and would fight

it out to the end; that as for staying at home, he would have been

like a hyæna, baited by enemies on all sides; and that if he did not

look after his own interests, he saw no one else who would do so for

him. The conversation may be fictitious, but it entirely accords with

Hasan’s poor and unaspiring character.

[513] Mohammed son of Abu Bekr, the regicide, was with Aly during the

impending battle, which would seem to show that all those concerned in

the insurrection against Othmân were not kept back. Possibly the order

applied only to the Bedouins from Kûfa that were so concerned.

[514] Among other things, Aly said to Zobeir: ‘Dost thou remember the

day when we both were with the Prophet among the Beni Ghanam; and

he looked on me and smiled, and I smiled in return; and thou saidst

to him, “Do not allow the son of Abu Tâlib to vapour thus;” and he

answered, “It is no vapouring to quarrel about; thou doest him an

injustice”?’ And Zobeir was touched.

The attitude of Talha and Zobeir is variously represented. They both

appear to have assented to Aly’s proposals; and (notwithstanding

Talha’s speech about compulsory swearing of allegiance) to have

continued peaceful negotiations.

On the other hand, Abdallah son of Zobeir manifests the same ambitious

spirit which led him many years afterwards into rebellion, and at one

time nearly gained for him the Caliphate. He is represented as now

taunting his father with faint-heartedness in swearing to Aly that he

would not fight; and even persuading him to release himself from the

oath by the legal substitution of freeing a slave.

Again, it is said that Zobeir was staggered when he heard that Ammâr

was in the field against him, in consequence of Mahomet’s having once

said that _Ammâr would be slain by an ungodly host_ (a matter

of which we shall hear more below). The general tenor of tradition

is, that, from whatever cause, he retired, without fighting, into the

neighbouring valley, and there met his death.

It is very difficult to weave a narrative at once faithful and

consistent out of all this. The conversations of the rebel leaders with

Aly must have been to a great extent conjectural; and the surprise of

both armies no doubt adds to the confusion of the narrative as given by

our authorities. The general outline, however, is established.

[515] The Eastern traveller will recognise and appreciate the

illustration.

[516] This camel is a prominent subject in tradition, as we might

expect from its having given its name to the battle, and many tales of

heroism are told both in its attacks and defence. One says he never

heard anything so fearful as the scream it gave when hamstrung.

[517] The numbers may be exaggerated; but the loss of life was, no

doubt, immense, and it is evidence of the terrible fury with which the

battle was fought. Of one tribe, the Beni Dhabba, alone, 1,000 men are

said to have been slain. The strong partisan feelings both of Bedouin

against Coreish, and of the opposing families of Hâshim and Omeyya,

long pent up, tended to give bitterness to the conflict; and there was

in addition the new cry of vengeance for the blood of Othmân.

[518] So carefully were Aly’s orders against plundering observed, that

whatever was found on the field, or in the insurgent camp, was gathered

together in the Great Mosque, and every man was allowed to claim his

own. To the malcontents who complained that they were not allowed to

take booty, Aly replied that the rights of war, in this case, lasted

only so long as the ranks were arrayed against each other; and that,

immediately on submission, the insurgents resumed their rights and

privileges as brother Moslems.

[519] ‘She of the two shreds.’--_Life of Mahomet_, p. 145.

[520] There is a great abundance of tradition concerning Ayesha, both

in the battle and after it. In the heat of the action, Aly’s soldiers

taunted her as ‘the _unnatural_ Mother of the Faithful.’ The

soldiers on her side, in reply, extemporised a couplet, extolling her

as ‘the noblest and best of Mothers.’ When they told it to her, she

was much affected, and exclaimed, ‘Would that I had died twenty years

before this!’ Aly also, when he heard it, said, ‘Would that I too had

died twenty years ago!’

Ayesha, always ready in repartee, was not very particular in her

language, and some of the speeches attributed to her are both coarse

and intemperate. Asim approaching her litter on the field, she cursed

him for the liberty he had taken. ‘It was but a little something red

and white,’ he said, impudently, ‘that I caught a glimpse of.’ ‘The

Lord uncover thy nakedness,’ she cried angrily; ‘cut off thy hands,

and make thy wife a widow!’ All which, they say, came to pass. A saucy

passage is related between her and the aged Ammâr, whose last words

were, as she was leaving, ‘Praise be to the Lord that we shall hear no

more that vile tongue of thine!’

Aly’s conduct was forbearing and generous. Of the family with which

Ayesha was lodged at Bussorah, two sons had been killed fighting, one

on the side of Aly, the other against him. The widow of the latter was

loud in her lamentation, crying out against Aly as the cause of her

sorrow. Aly was asked to punish her; but he refused, saying she was but

a weak woman, and should not be touched. On the other hand, some one

who spoke contumeliously of Ayesha was, by his order, beaten with shoes.

As Ayesha was starting for Mecca, Aly and a company gathered round her.

When the time came to bid farewell, she said, ‘Let us not entertain

hard thoughts one against the other; for verily, as regardeth Aly

and myself, there happened not anything between us (alluding to her

misadventure in the Prophet’s lifetime[521]) but that which is wont

to happen between a wife and her husband’s family; and verily Aly

was one of the best of them that entertained suspicions against me.’

Aly replied: ‘She speaketh the truth; there was nought, beyond what

she saith, between her and me.’ And then he went on to say (quoting

Mahomet’s own words) that ‘she was not only the Prophet’s wife in this

world, but equally his spouse in the next.’

[521] _Life of Mahomet_, p. 311.

[522] A separate chapter is generally assigned by the Arabian

historians to this episode; but its interest lies almost wholly in the

intense hatred conceived by the usurper towards Othmân. Hearing of his

factious courses, Othmân, to soften and remind him of his past care and

favour, sent him from Medîna a purse, and also a camel laden with rich

garments, as a present. The ungrateful rebel hung these up in the Great

Mosque of Fostât, and used them to point his invectives against Othmân

and the corruption of the age. Having joined the insurgent faction, he,

no doubt, hoped that Othmân’s successor would have confirmed him in the

government of Egypt. But Aly, treating him as he deserved, showed him

no favour, and appointed a man of his own to the government.

[523] I give the narrative as related by concurrent tradition, which I

can only question when there is strong internal probability against it.

It would, no doubt, have been satisfactory to have had some evidence

of Muâvia’s deceptive course of action. It may, however, all be true,

for Muâvia was never overscrupulous. But we have no proof excepting

_fama clamans_; and court influence under the Abbassides disposed

the historians of the day to make the most of every report that was

damaging to the character of the Omeyyad dynasty. The reader must,

therefore, be cautious of accepting implicitly all these imputations of

underhand machination.

[524] Aly’s cousins (sons of Jáfar, the Prophet’s uncle) appear to have

encouraged the suspicions against Cays, hoping thus to pave the way

for the appointment of Mohammed son of Abu Bekr, who was their uterine

brother (Abu Bekr married Jafar’s widow, _Life of Mahomet_, p.

410).

[525] One of his sons is said to have advised Amru to remain in

retirement and leave the impending conflict to be settled by those

immediately concerned. The other urged that it was not becoming one of

his father’s rank and dignity to be neutral. The former, Amru advised

(so runs the Abbasside tradition), him the best for his spiritual

advantage; the latter for his temporal, and he followed it.

[526] The oath reminds one of a similar vow taken by Hind after the

battle of Bedr. (_Life of Mahomet_, p. 246.)

[527] The western detachment, 12,000 strong, was forced by the hostile

attitude of Syria hastily to retrace its steps as far as Hît, where

they recrossed the river, and then marched north through Mesopotamia.

They were so long delayed that Aly, with the main body, reached Ricca

first, and, on seeing them come up, naïvely exclaimed, ‘Lo, here is my

advanced column in the rear!’

The main body took the Tigris route, perhaps as affording better forage

at that dry season of the year.

[528] When the people refused to throw a bridge of boats over the river

at Ricca, a detachment moved farther up, intending to cross by the

standing bridge at Membaj; but meanwhile Ashtar threatened to put the

inhabitants to the sword, and so had a bridge constructed at Ricca.

Ricca (Nicephorium) is at the junction of the Belîk with the Euphrates,

at which point the Great River, in its upper course, trends westward,

and thus approaches Aleppo. _Sûr al Rûm_ (now in ruins) is a

little way west of Ricca. It is near Thapsacus of the ancients, on the

line of the march of Cyrus.

[529] Freedmen begin to play prominent parts. Aly, on his side, gave a

banner to Kinbar, his freedman, and put him in command of a column; and

a verse of Amru’s has been preserved in which he pits the one freedman

against the other.

[530a] The tendency of tradition, which continues to be cast, as a

rule, in an Abbasside mould, is, throughout, to speak disparagingly of

Muâvia, and eulogistically of Aly. Thus Aly is represented as sending

Sassâa to ask Muâvia’s leave for his army to get water from the river

until they had had the opportunity of settling their differences. Amru

was for yielding to the request; but Muâvia, counselled by Welîd and

Abu Sarh, declined. A skirmish ensued, and the Syrians were beaten from

their ground. Then Aly’s people wished to refuse water to the Syrians;

but Aly was more generous, and allowed them to take what water they

wanted.

Siffîn was to the west of Ricca, about half-way to Balîs (one of

Chesney’s steamer stations), opposite the fort of Jabor or Dansa,

and about 100 miles from the coast. It lay south-east of Aleppo, and

north-east of Hims.]

[530] In the Persian version of Tabari, numbers are said to have

been slain every day; but no details nor any names are given, so the

casualties could not have been very serious. Blood was not yet inflamed.

It is significant that Aly’s deputations to Muâvia, as well as the

commanders of his columns (whose names are given), were almost

exclusively Bedouin chiefs; that is to say, there were hardly any of

the Coreish or of the citizens of Medîna amongst them, excepting Cays,

the ex-Governor of Egypt. Muâvia, on the contrary, had many such around

him, as Obeidallah son of Omar, Abdallah son of Khâlid, Habîb ibn

Maslama, &c.

[531] Ammâr, the ex-Governor of Kûfa, was son of the bond-woman

Sommeya. (See above, p. 268.) Othmân’s freedman was slain in the first

onslaught of the conspirators. (_Ibid._ p. 340.) Ammâr’s life was

forfeit, they meant to say, for the lesser crime, but much more for the

assassination of the Caliph.

[532] Thus the first day Ashtar was in command against Habîb ibn

Maslama; then Hâshim ibn Otba (the hero of Câdesîya) against Abul Aûr;

on the third day Ammâr against one of Amru’s sons, and so on. After six

days the turn came round again to Ashtar and Habîb. But it all reads

somewhat too made up.

[533] Mohammed son of Aly was challenged by Obeidallah son of Omar.

When Aly saw this, he put spurs to his horse and would have taken his

son’s place, whereupon the latter returned to the ranks, saying, ‘Why

didst thou not leave me alone, and I should have slain my man? And how

couldst thou, my father, offer single combat to such a scoundrel, and

the son of one (Omar) who was so inferior to thee?’ ‘Hush!’ said Aly,

‘speak nought of his father but good.’ Many instances are given of

brothers and near relatives meeting each other in conflicting ranks,

and turning aside from the fight in consequence;--so much was society,

even to the domestic circle, rent by the civil war.

[534] _Readers_ or _Reciters_ of the Corân (corâa), those,

namely, who, having it by heart, were able to repeat it from beginning

to end. They were the most fanatical part of the Moslem forces,

answering to the Ghâzies of our own day.

[535] Other versions are given of Ammâr’s last words by the Secretary

of Wâckidy, as this: ‘The thirsty man longeth for water; and here,

close by, it welleth up. Descend to the spring (death) and drink.

This is the joyful day of meeting with friends, with Mahomet and his

Companions.’ The various versions all portend the same wild fanatical

spirit which influenced the Moslem armies in the first battles against

the infidels, and which was now being imported equally into the civil

war against their own brethren in the faith.

[536] This curious saying, attributed to the Prophet (the same which

alarmed Zobeir at the Battle of the Camel, see p. 363), is thus

explained. When Mahomet first arrived in Medîna and began to build the

Great Mosque there, his followers all put their shoulders to the work,

and began to carry loads of stone, &c. upon their heads. Ammâr was

laden with a double burden, and Mahomet, seeing him fatigued, began to

blow off the dust from his head, saying kindly to him, ‘Ammâr! a cruel

and unjust people will surely slay thee;’ meaning apparently that ‘the

people will surely cause thy death by making thee carry such loads.’

Others attribute the saying to the similar occasion when Medîna was

besieged, and the citizens dug the great _Ditch_, carrying away

the loads of earth. Whatever the occasion, the saying was treasured up,

and when the civil war broke out, was accepted, and ever after quoted

by their enemies, as conclusive evidence that the Omeyyads were ‘the

rebellious people’ foretold by Mahomet.

The idea had taken such hold of the Syrian army that Amru said he was

thankful that Dzul Kelâa (the great Himyarite hero who fell fighting on

Muâvia’s side) was slain before Ammâr’s death, as otherwise it might

have staggered his constancy to the Syrian cause.

The saying itself, and the occasion on which Mahomet gave utterance to

it, assume such importance from their bearing on the great dynastic

controversy, that the Secretary of Wâckidy devotes several pages

to the multitudinous traditions on the subject. The Alyites hold

point-blank that ‘the truth _must_ have been with Ammâr, and that

it accompanied him on whichever side he fought.’ (_Kâtíb Wâckidi_,

fol. 228–230.)

Mahomet is said, also, to have foretold to Ammâr that his last drink

would be milk mingled with water; rather a safe prophecy, seeing that

it was Ammâr’s favourite beverage.

[537] Abu Mûsa had kept aloof from the battle, but must have been

in the neighbourhood. When told of the arbitration, he exclaimed,

‘The Lord be praised, Who hath stayed the fighting!’ ‘But thou art

appointed Arbiter on our side.’ ‘Alas! alas!’ he cried; and so, in much

trepidation, he repaired to Aly’s camp. Ahnaf ibn Cays asked to be

appointed joint-Umpire with Abu Mûsa, who, he said, was not the man to

stand alone, nor had he tact and wit enough for the task;--‘There is

not a knot which Abu Mûsa can tie, but I will unloose the same; nor a

knot he can unloose, but I will find another still harder to unravel.’

This was too true; but the army was in an insolent and perverse mood,

and would have none but Abu Mûsa.

[538] An angry passage is given as occurring between Amru and Aly,

but it reads like an Abbasside invention. When Amru objected to Aly

being named ‘Caliph,’ or ‘Commander of the Faithful,’ in the deed, Aly

recalled to those around him the similar occurrence at Hodeibia. He

said that when he himself, on that occasion, was reducing the truce

to writing, the Coreish objected to Mahomet being styled in it _The

Prophet of the Lord_. ‘Well do I remember,’ continued Aly, ‘when the

Prophet desired me, at their bidding, to erase the words; and then,

when I hesitated, he blotted them out with his own hand, and said to

me, “The day will come when thou, too, shalt be called on to make a

like concession, and thou shalt agree thereto.” ‘Out upon thee!’ cried

Amru; ‘dost thou liken us unto the Pagan Arabs, being good believers?’

‘And when,’ said Aly, answering indirectly, ‘shall the Wicked not have

a head, nor the Faithful an enemy?’ Whereupon Amru swore that he never

would sit in company with Aly again; and Aly, on his part, expressed

a similar determination. This conversation may possibly have had

some foundation in fact, but it is abundantly coloured by Abbasside

imagination. For the scene at Hodeibia, see _Life of Mahomet_, p.

372.

[539] Some make the interval arranged for to have been _eight_

months. The ordinary term named by tradition is to Ramadhân or February

(A.D. 658), which was seven or eight months from the date of

the truce; others name shabân, or january, making the interval six; and

this is the commonly received account.

[540] The persian tabari gives the slain on both sides from first to

last at 40,000, out of a total force of 130,000 men. making every

allowance for exaggeration, the carnage must have been great. the

names of only a few ‘companions’ are given; but now these were rapidly

disappearing from the scene, as the period of a whole generation had

elapsed since the hegira. the chief fighting, moreover, was between the

bedouins; those from the north, as a rule, being on aly’s side, and

the arabs of the south on that of muâvia. the numbers from mecca and

medîna were comparatively small. the prisoners taken on both sides were

released. amru is spoken of as having advised to put them to death, but

this is altogether unlikely.

[541] See above, p. 226.

[542] Hence the seceders are sometimes called _harôrites_.

[543] dûma, to the extreme north of the peninsula, lies half-way

between Irâc and Syria, thus fulfilling the conditions of the truce.

some place the scene at adzroh.

Tabari (persian translation) represents abu mûsa as at first appearing

unattended, and then, at amru’s suggestion, sending for the stipulated

guard. it came under command of the bedouin chief shoreih, who, we are

told, carried an insolent message from his master aly to amru, warning

him against improper motives. amru resented the imputation, and an

altercation ensued. the tradition is from alyite sources; but one can

hardly credit aly with so indelicate a proceeding as the attempt by

threats to influence his adversary’s umpire. the whole story is in the

vein of abbasside abuse, which tramples on the memories of muâvia and

amru; and here we may well reject it in the interest of aly himself.

[544] Among those who entertained expectations of the caliphate are

named abdallah son of zobeir, the usurper of later days; and mohammed

son of talha. opinion varies as to whether mohammed son of abu bekr was

a candidate or not. abdallah son of omar was present, but without any

pretensions to the caliphate.

[545] He had a beautiful voice, ‘clear and sweet as a flute’ when he

recited the corân.

[546] At this point mohammed son of abbâs is represented as interposing

with these words: ‘out upon thee, abu mûsa! he hath overreached thee

if indeed ye be agreed, and now he putteth thee forward. let him speak

first, and thou after him. he is a deceiver; he will make thee speak,

then turn round and undo thy words.’ but abu mûsa did not listen.

any such interposition, however, is highly improbable. for it could

hardly have been foreseen in what particular way amru was about to

overreach abu mûsa. moreover the private conversation and agreement

in the pavilion between the umpires is itself open to doubt; at any

rate, it is deeply coloured by abbasside touches. but we have no other

narrative, and must take the story as we find it. and although strange,

and, in some of the details, improbable, it must be admitted that the

transaction is not inconsistent, as a whole, with the wily character of

amru, who made himself notorious for astuteness and ‘sharp practice.’

[547] We do not hear more of abu mûsa, who, however, survived to A.H.

52, or, as others say, to A.H. 42. Some of his grandsons held judicial

office.

Many of the angry speeches at Dûma by the chief men, who were

bewildered at the strange _dénouement_, have been preserved. These are

some of them. _The son of Omar_: ‘See what a pass Islam hath come to!

Its great concern committed to two men; one who knoweth not right from

wrong, the other a nincompoop.’ _Abu Bekr’s son_: ‘Would that Abu Mûsa

had died before this affair; it had been better for him.’ Abu Mûsa

himself is represented as abusing Amru in the language of the Corân:

‘His likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if thou drive him away, he

putteth forth his tongue; and if thou leave him alone, still he putteth

forth his tongue.’ (_Sura_ vii. 77.) ‘And thou,’ retorted Amru, ‘art

like the donkey laden with books, and none the wiser for it.’ (_Sura_

vi. 25.) Shureih, commander of the Kûfa escort, flew at Amru, and they

belaboured each other with their whips, till they were separated by the

people. Shureih exclaimed that he only wished he had used his sword

instead. But the tales are mostly of the Abbasside type, and we cannot

implicitly receive them.

[548] The imprecation used by Aly has been preserved, as follows: ‘O

Lord, I beseech thee, let Muâvia be accursed, and Amru, and Abul Aûr,

Habîb, Abdal Rahmân son of (the great) Khâlid, Dhahhâk son of Cays,

and Welîd! Let them be accursed all!’ Muâvia’s imprecation, in the

same way, included Aly, Ibn Abbâs, Hasan and Hosein (sons of Aly), and

Ashtar.

[549] The formula was: _La hukm illa lillâhi_. The political creed

of the Separatists was that, Believers being absolutely equal, there

should be no Caliph, nor oath of allegiance sworn to any man; but that

the government should be in the hands of a Council of State elected by

the people. When the loyalists heard this, to counteract the evil, they

said, ‘Come, let us swear a second oath of fealty unto Aly, namely,

that we shall support all that he supporteth, and oppose all that he

opposeth.’ ‘Now truly,’ replied the Separatists, ‘ye are running, ye

and the Syrians, neck and neck, in the race of infidelity. They follow

Muâvia through thick and thin, and ye swear by Aly black and white.’

‘Nay,’ replied the loyalists, ‘Aly never held forth his hand to receive

the oath, but on condition of following the Book and the Sunnat of

the Prophet. It is you that have made us think of this new oath. As

for Aly, he is altogether in the right, and whosoever opposeth him is

wandering in the paths of error.’ So spake Ziâd the son of Nadhr; but

they heeded him not.

[550] Of these, 40,000 were enrolled stipendiaries, 17,000 youths below

the ordinary fighting age, and 8,000 slaves. On finding the people

indifferent, Aly first induced certain chiefs of influence to lead the

way, and then made the heads of every clan and every household furnish

the names of their dependants. The backwardness might have been in some

measure due to the feeling that the fanatics should first be dealt

with as a danger immediately threatening Kûfa. But apart from this,

the influence of Aly was weak and precarious. Never enthusiastic on

his side, the people were becoming more and more indifferent to him.

This was partly owing, no doubt, to the strong feeling against the

pretensions of the Coreish that prevailed at Kûfa.

[551] These outrages were of the most barbarous character. For example,

a traveller refusing to confess Khârejite tenets was put to death, and

his wife, great with child, ripped up with the sword; three women of

the Beni Tay were killed, &c.

[552] Only seven men were killed on Aly’s side. The burden of the

fanatic cry was that Aly had committed a deadly sin in consenting to

refer to human judgment that which appertained alone to the Divine; and

that he must repent of his apostasy. Aly replied, that being a true

believer he would belie himself if he admitted his apostasy.

Abu Ayûb, as he speared one of the fanatic leaders, cried, ‘I give thee

joy of hell fire!’ Aly affirmed the imprecation, thereby implying that

in his judgment the fanatics had damned themselves by going out of the

pale of Islam and of its covenanted mercies.

[553] This is the meaning of the name: _Khârejite_, one who ‘goes

forth,’ rebelling against the government with the demand for a

theocracy.

[554] The fact is mentioned _famâ clamante_, and there is no

counter evidence. It was, no doubt, of vital importance to Muâvia to be

rid of Ashtar; but this may of itself have suggested the report; and in

the East, sudden deaths are generally set down to poisoning, a charge

easy to make and difficult to disprove. Muâvia, we are told, promised

the chief, who was collector of the tithes and revenues at the head of

the Red Sea, immunity from taxation for ever after, if he committed the

foul deed. But as these histories were all compiled more or less under

Abbasside influences, and the evidence is absolutely one-sided, we must

be on our guard against the continual abuse and depreciation of the

Omeyyad dynasty. The portion of the original Tabari, now in the press

may possibly throw light on this and other obscure passages of our

history.

[555] According to some he was slain in battle; but the more received

story is that he was put to death by an insurgent leader, who was so

inveterate against the regicides that he had put his own son to death

for being of that party. Notwithstanding that Amru had given Mohammed

quarter, this chief, we are told, slew him in cold blood, and having

put his body in an ass’s skin, burned it in the flames. Ayesha was

inconsolable at her brother’s fate, and (although her politics were

all against Aly) she was now led to curse Muâvia and Amru in her daily

prayers, and thenceforward ate no roasted meat nor pleasant food until

her death.

[556] The incident is significant of the attitude of the Moslems

at this period towards Christian captives, which certainly had not

softened since the time of Mahomet. On hearing of Mascala’s humanity,

the commander of the army said, ‘If I had had any notion that he did

this thing out of false pity for the Christians, and thus cast a slight

upon Islam, I would, at the risk even of alienating all the Beni Bekr

(Mascala’s tribe), have beheaded him on the spot.’ Aly’s remark was:

‘The first act of Mascala (in offering to take upon himself the ransom

of the prisoners) was the act of a prince; his second (in avoiding

his obligations and going over to Muâvia) the act of a robber and an

outlaw.’ So he gave orders for his house to be razed, and all his

slaves set free.

From Damascus, Mascala sent a letter to his brother at Kûfa, offering

him, on the part of Muâvia, a command and great honour if he would come

over to him. The messenger, a Christian of the Beni Tâghlib, was seized

and carried before Aly, who ordered his hands to be cut off, so that he

died. His brother wrote verses in reply from Kûfa, from which Mascala

gathered the concealed meaning, that the messenger had lost his life.

Whereupon the Beni Tâghlib received blood-money from Muâvia. The verses

have been preserved.

[557] Abu Mûsa, on this occasion, fled from Mecca for his life. The

unfortunate man, ever since the Arbitration, was equally obnoxious to

both sides.

[558] Why to Hasan does not appear, as the hereditary principle of

succession was not as yet thought of, either in Aly’s or any other line.

[559] The mother, for example, apostrophising the assassin, speaks of

her infants, with singular beauty and pathos, as pearls whose shell has

been rudely torn asunder:

Ah! who hath seen my two little ones--

Darlings that lay hidden, as it were pearls within the fold of

their shell?

As they were grandchildren of Abbâs, the Caliph’s uncle, the incident

naturally occupies a conspicuous position in Abbasside tradition.

[Sidenote: Ackîl, Aly’s brother, deserts.]Aly cursed Bosor, praying

that he might lose his intellect, and in answer to the prayer (so it is

said) he became a hopeless, drivelling lunatic.

[560] The defection of Ackîl is not mentioned in the Persian Tabari.

But the circumstance is not one of a kind likely to have been invented,

or (as being opposed to the credit of the Prophet’s family) perpetuated

by tradition under Abbasside influence, if it had not been founded

on fact. On the occasion, Aly gave vent to his grief in these lines,

illustrating the proverb of Solomon, ‘A brother is born for adversity’:

He is not a brother who quitteth thee in the dark and louring day;

But rather he that abideth with thee then,

Rejoicing in thy success, and weeping in thy misfortune.

Some traditions make the retirement of Abdallah from Bussorah to have

occurred after Aly’s death. But the fact, as stated above, is not

likely to have been fabricated. Besides, the narrative is given in

great detail and consistency. Abdallah received the summons of Aly to

render an account of his government, with wrath and scorn, and retired

from Bussorah, carrying his great riches with him. He was pursued by

the citizens of Bussorah; but after some fighting, in which the rival

tribes took part, he managed to get off to Mecca without further

molestation.

[561] The assassin thought at first that he had accomplished his

object; but, when taken before Amru, and seeing how the people made

their obeisance to him, he discovered his mistake. ‘Tyrant!’ he

exclaimed, ‘it was for thee the blow was intended.’ ‘Thou intendedst

me,’ replied Amru, with characteristic brevity; ‘but the Lord intended

thee!’ and the culprit was led away to execution. Like many of Amru’s

sayings, the words became a proverb.

[562] Muâvia was stabbed in the groin. Some say that the culprit was

put to death. Others say, that one hand and the opposite foot (the

punishment of a robber according to the Corân) were cut off, and that

he was sent to Bussorah. There having begotten a son, Ziâd put him to

death, saying, ‘Thou hast begotten a son thyself, and hast made the

Caliph impotent; thou shalt die.’ Muâvia said, that having already

Yezîd for his heir, he did not care for further offspring. I give the

story as I find it.

[563] In modern times, some spiritual loss in the future state is

popularly attributed to the burning of a criminal’s body. Here,

apparently, it was intended to be emblematical of the fire of hell to

which Hasan consigned the murderer. In the case of Abu Bekr’s son (p.

403), the additional indignity was added of the body being packed up in

an ass’s skin.

The offer to assassinate Muâvia is hardly consistent with the

expectation which Ibn Muljam must have had that he had already perished

at the hand of his brother conspirator. But I give the words as I find

them.

[564] The popular tradition is that he was buried at Najaf, near to

Kûfa, and on the shore of the ‘Sea’ of that name, where his supposed

tomb is the object of popular veneration at the present day. Others

assert (but on no sufficient ground) that Hasan had the body removed

to Medîna. There is, in fact, no tradition of any authority on the

subject. The uncertainty is significant. Aly never had any hold on the

affections of the people. His grave must have been neglected, and even

lost sight of, in the troubles succeeding his death. The oblivion as to

his burial-place is in strange contrast with the almost Divine honours

paid to him by so many sects in later days.

[565] One of the sons died in infancy. The daughters were Zeinab and

Omm Kolthûm; but he had, by other mothers, two other daughters whom he

called by the same names, _i.e._ Zeinab the less, and Omm Kolthûm

the less.

[566] The mother of this little girl belonged to the Beni Kilâb. The

child lisped, pronouncing _l_ like _sh_, and so was unable to

say _Kilâb_; so when asked to what tribe she belonged, she would

imitate the bark of a dog (kilâb or kalb meaning ‘a dog’), to the great

delight of Aly and his courtiers.

[567] Such was the popular belief even at the Alyite court of Al Mâmun.

See _The Apology of Al Kindy_, which faithfully represents the

sentiments current at that day among the courtiers of Baghdad, p. 25.

[568] It might be thought that the teaching of Ibn Sauda in Egypt was

the germ of the Divine Imâmate and Second Coming. But the traditions

regarding that teaching are altogether vague and uncertain. Whatever

it was, it certainly took no root; nor do we hear of it again for many

years after, and then first away in the far East.

[569] His vagrant passions gained for him the unenviable nickname of

_The Divorcer_, for it was only by continual divorces that he

could harmonise his craving for new nuptials with the requirements

of the Divine law, which limited his lawful wives to four. He is

said to have exercised the power of divorce, as a matter of simple

caprice, seventy (according to others ninety) times. The leading

men complained to Aly that his son was continually marrying their

daughters, and continually divorcing them. Aly replied that the remedy

lay in their own hands; they should refuse to give him their daughters

to wife. These divorced wives were irrespective of his concubines or

slave-girls, upon the number and variety of whom there was no limit or

check whatever.

[570] There are some traditions, but untrustworthy, that Muâvia was

now, for the first time, proclaimed Caliph at Jerusalem.

[571] The traditions read as if the army had been previously kept up

in readiness for an attack on Syria; but, as already shown, a truce

at this time existed between Aly and Muâvia of indefinite duration,

according to which hostilities had been laid aside.

[572] Aly had formerly taken the same route, via Medâin, when advancing

upon Syria. Muâvia was no doubt marching now from Ricca or Tadmor,

across the plain of Upper Mesopotamia, and the natural way of meeting

him would, consequently, be up the Tigris from Medâin, and then

striking off to the west.

[573] The received date of Hasan’s resignation, as in the text, would

make his reign last five and a half months. Others place it in Rabî

II., and some even in Jumâd I., which would make the reign one or two

months longer.

His offer to resign on specified terms was crossed by a messenger from

Muâvia, with a blank sheet signed by Muâvia, who thus declared his

readiness to concede any terms to Hasan if he abdicated. Thereupon

Hasan doubled his claim; but Muâvia refused, saying that he had already

specified his terms, and that they had been accepted. Darâbgird was the

district of which Hasan was to receive the revenues; but the people of

Bussorah claimed it as their own conquest, and would not give it up.

There is an Abbasside tradition, that one abused Hasan as he left Kûfa,

saying that he had ‘blackened the faces of the Moslems;’ to which Hasan

replied by quoting a dream in which Mahomet saw the descendants of

Omeyya one after another ascending the steps of his pulpit; whereupon

the Prophet was comforted by the revelation of Suras 97 and 108,

regarding the Fountain of Al Cawthar and the Night of Power, which he

is told are ‘better than a thousand months,’ that is, than the thousand

months during which the Beni Omeyya would rule!

According to another tradition, Amru persuaded Muâvia to allow Hasan,

after his own inaugural speech, to address the people. Hasan then began

to speak of the wheel of fortune, and of the necessity of stopping the

effusion of blood, and was going on to quote Sura xxi. v. 111, about

the world being a trial, and the Lord helping the Prophet against his

adversaries, when Muâvia made him sit down. He also told Amru he had

made a mistake in proposing that Hasan should be allowed to speak.

[574] Amru, they say, wished Muâvia to fight Cays, but he answered that

it would be only useless bloodshed, and so sent to Cays a clean sheet

signed at foot, as he had done to Hasan, agreeing to any terms he might

propose. Cays, upon receiving this, bade his soldiers choose whether

they ‘preferred to obey an illegitimate prince, or to go on fighting

without any prince at all.’ They preferred to give in, and so retired

from the field.

We hear little more of Cays, who died before Muâvia. His sympathies

had been all on the side of Aly; and if the correspondence that passed

between Muâvia and him, when in Egypt, be genuine, he had little reason

to trust Muâvia.

[575] We are even told that the promise given by Muâvia to Hasan,

namely that the sound of the curse should not fall upon his ears, was

not kept.

It is said that Omar II. (A.H. 100) dropped the imprecation;

but he was a poor pietist, whose religious scruples led him to make

many weak concessions, and even to recognise the claims of the house of

Aly. He is of course popular with the Abbassides, who magnify him as a

saint of blessed memory, and have invented many wonderful stories to

his credit. Weil thinks that this may be one of them; and, at any rate,

if suspended during his reign, the curse was resumed immediately on his

decease.

[576] The culprit was a noble Arab lady, the daughter of Asháth, Chief

of the Beni Kinda. The tradition, that she was bribed by Muâvia, is

altogether unlikely, and is no doubt a fiction of the prevailing

character. Hasan was, politically, a harmless creature; and Muâvia had

no motive whatever, after his abdication and retirement into private

life (so far as our materials go), for the crime. The jealousies of

Hasan’s ever-changing harem afford a far likelier reason.

[577] Amru is, as a matter of course, unpopular with the Abbasside

historians, who make the most of his undoubted unscrupulousness and

levity both in word and action. His last words are said to have been

the humble confession that his life had been one of rebellion against

the Lord, and an earnest prayer for pardon.

[578] See above, p. 264.

[579] The subject was much canvassed by all parties. Prior to Islam,

the law of marriage and legitimacy was lax; and a loose woman might,

as in the present case, ascribe the paternity of her child to anyone

prepared to admit the same; and (adds Ibn al Athîr) had Muâvia taken up

this ground, there could have been no valid objection to it. But he did

more; he proceeded to take the evidence of the owner of the slave-girl,

as if the case had been one of Mahometan law, under which the paternity

would not have been admitted, and the case, in fact, would have been

held to be one of whoredom, demanding the punishment of both parties.

Tradition varies as to whether Abu Sofiân himself ever acknowledged the

paternity.

After Muâvia had recognised him as his brother, Ziâd proposed to go on

pilgrimage to Mecca and Medîna. His brother, Abu Bakra (who, offended

at his tergiversation in the adulterous charge against Moghîra, had

never spoken to him since) sent a message to dissuade him. ‘Thou wilt

meet Omm Habîba,’ he said, ‘if thou wilt go on pilgrimage. Now, if she

receive thee as her brother, that will be regarded as a slight upon the

memory of the Prophet; if otherwise, it will be a slight upon thyself.’

So Ziâd thought better of it, and gave up the design.

Again, Ziâd, wishing to extract an acknowledgment of his birth from

Ayesha, addressed a letter to her in which he subscribed himself, _Ziâd

son of Abu Sofiân_; to which she replied, without committing herself,

merely thus, ‘To my dear son, Ziâd.’ On the same ground, Abbasside

writers ordinarily name him without a patronymic, as, _Ziâd ibn Abîhi_,

i.e. ‘Ziâd, son of his _father_.’ He is also called after his _mother_,

‘Ziâd ibn Sommeyya.’

[580] We are told that the same attempt, followed by similar prodigies,

was made by the Caliph Abd al Malik, and also by Welîd, &c.; in fact,

it was an impious act, of a kind which Abbasside tradition is rather

fond of attributing to the Omeyyad Caliphs. We are told that Mahomet,

anticipating the sacrilege, is said to have threatened hell-fire

against any who would venture to remove the pulpit. This Abu Horeira,

who came to Medîna, A.H. 7, and from whom we have so many

traditions, died in A.H. 57 or 59.

[581] Sád (the father of Cays) was the only recusant.

[582] The project, indeed, has been attributed entirely to Moghîra.

The tradition runs thus: Moghîra was afraid that Muâvia intended to

supersede him as Governor of Kûfa by the promotion of Ziâd to the post;

and so, by suggesting the nomination of Yezîd, and promising to gain

over the city of Kûfa to it, he hoped to secure his continued hold of

the city, as being necessary to the success of the scheme. But the

tradition bears strong marks of coming through an Abbasside medium.

[583] When Merwân, governor of the city, placed the matter before the

men of Medîna, he was at first violently opposed. Amongst others, Abd

al Rahmân, son of Abu Bekr, said, ‘This thing is naught but a fraud and

a deception. In place of the election, the right to which vesteth in

this city, ye will now make the succession like unto that of the Greeks

and Romans--where one Heraclius succeedeth another Heraclius.’ On this,

Muâvia quoted from the Corân: ‘Say not unto your parents, _Fie on

you!_ neither reproach them’ (_Sura_ xvii. 24); signifying, it

may be, that the very practice of nomination, now opposed, had been

introduced by Abu Bekr himself in appointing Omar.

Abdallah son of Omar is said to have been gained over by the gift of

ten thousand golden pieces.

[584] That the Caliph should be a Coreishite was a condition generally

admitted, excepting by the Khârejites, who opposed the exclusive

pretensions of the Coreish, and, supposing there were a Caliph (for the

stricter would have had only a Council of State), were indifferent from

what stock he came.

[585] Yezîd was the only fit son Muâvia had. He was also born of a

noble mother belonging to the Beni Kalb, who amid the luxuries of the

court pined for the freedom of nomad life. Another son was decrepid;

and a third the son of a slave-girl. By the letter of the Mahometan

law, the son of the bond-woman is equally legitimate with the son

of the free. But amongst the Arabs, the son of a noble mother took

precedence over the lower born; and so noble birth became naturally one

of the elements of fitness in the choice. And the same we see to the

present day, even in such petty principalities as that of Afghanistan.

The history of Yezîd’s mother has attractions for the Arab writers. She

gave vent to her longing for a return to desert life in verse, which

coming to Muâvia’s ears, he dismissed her with her son to live in the

encampment of her tribe; and there Yezîd acquired the tastes of the

Bedouins, and his love for the chase and a free life, which he ever

after retained. His mother’s verses were such as these:

A tent fanned by the desert breeze is dearer far to me than the

lofty palace.

I should ride more joyously on the young camel than on the richly

caparisoned steed.

The whistling of the gale across the sandy plain is sweeter to me

than the flourish of royal trumpets.

A crust of bread in the corner of a Bedouin tent has a better

relish to me than that of choicest viands.

The noble Arab of my tribe is more comely in my sight than the

obese and bearded men around me.

O that I were once again in my desert home! I would not exchange

it for the most gorgeous hall.

[586] His courage, however, was more moral than physical. Both he and

Aly, by luxurious living, had become obese (at Kûfa, Aly went by the

nickname of ‘the pot-bellied’), so that in their later years there was

little room, in respect of either, for active bodily exertion. Still,

even as late as the field of Siffîn, we have seen that Aly fought with

his early gallantry; while Muâvia (if the tradition be true) shrank

from a personal encounter with him. Aly was, without doubt, the braver

of the two in physical courage; but Muâvia, beyond comparison, the

abler and bolder ruler.

[587] Some, again, think that Abd al Rahmân died before this.

[588] Muslim was son of Ackîl (brother of Aly) and grandson of Abu

Tâlib, Mahomet’s uncle. All the actors in this melancholy chapter

have become household names in the mouths of Moslems, especially the

Shîyites.

[589] The number varies in different traditions; but no account gives

it at more than forty horse and one hundred foot. Seventy heads were

brought into Kûfa, including probably all the combatants. There were,

no doubt, others, non-combatants, camp-followers, &c.

[590] Horr (we are to believe), during these parleys, was converted to

the cause of Hosein, and eventually going over to him, fell fighting

by his side. But the whole of the sad tale becomes at this point so

intensified and overlaid with Alyite fiction, that it is impossible

to believe a hundredth part of what is related, and which the heated

imaginations of the Shîyites have invented.

All the names we meet with here are ranged, either on one side or on

the other (especially in the Shîyite vocabulary), as models either of

piety or apostasy.

[591] Amr son of Sád the hero of Câdesîya, they tell us, had just been

nominated by Obeidallah to the government of Rei in Persia; and now

Obeidallah made it a condition of investiture that he should bring

in Hosein, dead or alive. The scene is painted theatrically of Amr

wavering between duty to the grandson of the Prophet, and the bribe of

office. He yielded to the latter, and for Mammon sold his soul. But all

this must be taken _cum grano_.

[592] _Shamir_ ibn Dzu al Joshan, the Dhihâbite, is a name never

pronounced by the pious Moslem but with ejaculatory curse. Obeidallah

(so the story goes) was at first inclined to concede the prayer of

Hosein, as urged by Amr, for a safe-conduct to the Caliph at Damascus,

when Shamir stepped forward, and said that Obeidallah, for the

credit of his own name, must insist on the Pretender’s surrender at

discretion. So he obtained from Obeidallah a letter to Amr, threatening

that if he failed to bring Hosein in, Shamir should take the command,

and also obtain the government of Rei in his stead. The name is

variously pronounced as Shamir or Shimar, Shomar or Shimr.

[593] Aly Akbar, that is _Aly the elder_, as his brother was called Aly

Asghar, _Aly the younger_.

[594] There were either six or seven of Abu Tâlib’s descendants. There

was moreover a foster-brother of Hosein, and also a freedman of his.

[595] The tradition goes on to say that Obeidallah was wroth with this

aged spokesman, called him a drivelling dotard, and said that if he

had not been such, he would have beheaded him upon the spot. But much

is manifestly here invented, and everything coloured for effect. Some

represent the incident as occurring at the Court at Damascus, and

ascribe the speech to Yezîd. Weil holds falsely so, and I agree with

him.

[596] Aly the less is also called _Zein al Abidîn_, ‘Ornament of the

Pious.’

[597] The name of Hasan is added, not only according to the Shîyite

theory that he was entitled to the Caliphate (though he resigned it),

but because he, too, is regarded as a martyr poisoned by his wife, as

they say, at the instigation of Muâvia, but, as we have seen, without

any sufficient presumption.

The tragedy is yearly represented on the stage as a religious ceremony,

especially by the Shîyites, in the ‘Passion Play,’ throughout which

are interwoven, in a supernatural romance, the lives of the early

worthies of Islam, ending with the pathetic tale of the martyr company

of Kerbala; while Abu Bekr, Omar, and Othmân are execrated as usurpers,

and the whole Omeyyad crew, Obeidallah, Hajjâj, &c., are held up to

eternal malediction. A series of these scenes will be found well

represented in _The Miracle Play of Hasan and Hosein_, by Sir

Lewis Pelly, London, 1879. It will give some idea of the extravagances

of Shîya doctrine, and of the intense hold which the episode of Kerbala

has taken of the Moslem mind.

[598] Weil thinks that if, instead of leaving his battles to be fought

by his generals and remaining himself inactive at Mecca, he had shown

the energy of his early days and attacked the Caliphs in Syria, he

would probably have overthrown them; even as it was, he was near to

doing so.

The dismantling of the Káaba excited the same terror as when it was

rebuilt in the youth of Mahomet, nearly a century before. (_Life_,

p. 28.) No one durst detach a stone; and when Ibn Zobeir took the

pickaxe in his own hands, many fled the city, fearing the Divine wrath,

and only returned when after three days they saw no ill effect follow.

In the time of Ibn Zobeir music and singing were common at Mecca, so

that notwithstanding the scandal excited at Medîna, the practices of

Syria were beginning to leaven even the Holy Cities.

[599] Abu Obeid, the famous warrior who was slain in the battle of the

Bridge.

[600] _Life of Mahomet_, p. 145.

[601] In this reign the Moslem arms, conducted by the famous Mûsa,

reached to the Atlantic. The Moslem fleets were now powerful, and made

a descent on Sicily, A.H. 82.

Kûfa and Bussorah continued to give such constant annoyance, that Wâsit

(or the ‘_Midway_ garrison’) was founded half-way between the two

cities, to keep them in check. Moslem mints were now first established,

the coinage having a verse of the Corân for the legend. See Weil’s

_Caliphs_, vol. i. p. 470.

[602] Whatever the cruelties of Hajjâj, it must be confessed that

he had a rebellious race to deal with. And in respect of his attack

on Mecca, from whence Ibn Zobeir so long defied the empire, it is

difficult to see how that attack could have been avoided; but the

necessity is forgotten, and only the sacrilege, with its testudos and

battering rams, remembered. In point of cruelty, indeed, it would not

be easy for inhumanity to outdo the deeds of some of the Abbasside

Caliphs. But Hajjâj was the servant of the ‘godless’ Omeyyads, and

indiscriminate abuse must be heaped both on him and his Master.

[603] For the unbridled sensuality of the times, the use of wine and

other breaches of the Moslem law, and the demoralisation that festered

in these seats of luxury, I must again refer to H. von Kremer’s

excellent work, _Culturgeschichte des Orients unter den Chalifen_,

Wien, 1875.

[604] The term _Shîya_ (Sheea) means simply sect or party; but it

has come to signify the partisans of the house of Aly, holding this

Divine claim. Imâm means head or leader, and, according to the Shîyas,

the Imâmate, or Headship of all Islam, vests in the house of Aly. Hence

we are continually hearing of an Imâm, or successor of this line, as

about to appear.

[605] 26th Dzul Hijj, A.H. 132, August 5, A.D. 750.

[606] He was the fifth in descent from the Prophet’s uncle; that is,

he was the grandson of Aly, who was the grandson of Abbâs. _Al

Saffâh_ signifies, ‘The Butcher.’

[607] Thus the use of wine, and the Mutáah or temporary marriage, could

be justified. The latter, by which a conjugal contract can be entered

into for a limited period, is still a tenet of the Shîyas; but is

justly reprobated by the orthodox.

[608] When he found that the scheme must be given up, he caused his

son-in-law--now an inconvenient appendage--to be removed by poison.

[609] For example, it was only under a Motázilite court that any such

discussion as the Christian ‘Apology of Al Kindy’ could have been

allowed to see the light.

[610] For the ‘Ordinances of Omar,’ see above, p. 212.

[611] Such is the character of the Wahâbee revival which, born in the

present century, spread rapidly and widely over Arabia, and extended in

some of its features (chiefly of a protesting character) even to India.

[612] Soonnies (Sunnies) are those who acknowledge the authority of the

_Sunnat_, or precedent established by the practice of Mahomet,

and also admit the validity of the Caliphates of Abu Bekr, Omar, and

Othmân, which the Shîyites deny.

[613] Their bigotry is conspicuous mostly in matters of purification, a

remnant, probably, of their ancient faith. Baths and mosques are held

polluted by the presence of an infidel. It is curious, also, that the

Persians to this day curse the memory of Al Mâmûn, and accuse him of

poisoning his Alyite son-in-law; curiously enough, using his name as a

term of abuse.

Transcriber’s Notes:

1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been

corrected silently.

2. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the

original.

3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have

been retained as in the original.

4. Errata have been silently corrected.

5. Italics are shown as _xxx_.