|
| |
|
When talking about the Arabs before Islam,we deem it necessary to
draw a mini-picture of the history of rulership, princeship, sectarianism and the
religious dominations of the Arabs, so as to facilitate the understanding of emergent
circumstances when Islam appeared.
When the sun of Islam rose, rulers of Arabia were of two kinds:
crowned kings, who were in fact not independent; and heads of tribes and clans, who
enjoyed the same authorities and privileges possessed by crowned kings and were mostly
independent, though some of whom could have shown some kind of submission to a crowned
king. The crowned kings were only those of Yemen, Heerah and Ghassan. All other rulers of
Arabia were non-crowned.
|
|
The folks of Sheba were one of the oldest nations of the pure Arabs,
who lived in Yemen. Excavations at "Or" brought to light their existence twenty
five centuries B.C. Their civilization flourished, and their domain spread eleven
centuries B.C.
It is possible to divide their ages according to the following
estimation:
- The centuries before 650 B.C., during which their kings were called
"Makrib Sheba". Their capital was "Sarwah", also known as
"Khriba", whose ruins lie in a spot, a day’s walk from the western side of
"Ma’rib". During this period, they started building the "Dam of
Ma’rib" which had great importance in the history of Yemen. Sheba was also said
to have had so great a domain that they had colonies inside and outside Arabia.
- From 650 B.C. until 115 B.C. During this era, they gave up the name
"Makrib" and assumed the designation of "Kings of Sheba". They also
made Ma’rib their capital instead of Sarwah. The ruins of Ma’rib lie at a
distance of sixty miles east of San‘a.
- From 115 B.C. until 300 A.D. During this period, the tribe of Himyar
conquered the kingdom of Sheba and took Redan for capital instead of Ma’rib. Later
on, Redan was called "Zifar". Its ruins still lie on Mudawwar Mountain near the
town of "Yarim". During this period, they began to decline and fall. Their trade
failed to a very great extent, firstly, because of the Nabetean domain over the north of
Hijaz; secondly, because of the Roman superiority over the naval trade routes after the
Roman conquest of Egypt, Syria and the north of Hijaz; and thirdly, because of the
inter-tribal warfare. Thanks to the three above-mentioned factors, families of Qahtan were
disunited and scattered out.
- From 300 A.D. until Islam dawned on Yemen. This period witnessed a
lot of disorder and turmoil. The great many and civil wars rendered the people of Yemen
liable to foreign subjection and hence loss of independence. During this era, the Romans
conquered ‘Adn and even helped the Abyssinians (Ethiopians) to occupy Yemen for the
first time in 340 A.D., making use of the constant intra-tribal conflict of Hamdan and
Himyar. The Abyssinian (Ethiopian) occupation of Yemen lasted until 378 A.D., whereafter
Yemen regained its independence. Later on, cracks began to show in Ma’rib Dam which
led to the Great Flood (450 or 451 A.D.) mentioned in the Noble Qur’ân. This was a
great event which caused the fall of the entire Yemeni civilization and the dispersal of
the nations living therein.
In 523, Dhu Nawas, a Jew, despatched a great campaign against the
Christians of Najran in order to force them to convert into Judaism. Having refused to do
so, they were thrown alive into a big ditch where a great fire had been set. The
Qur’ân referred to this event:
"Cursed were the people of the
ditch." [Al-Qur'an 85:4]
This aroused great wrath among the Christians, and especially the
Roman emperors, who not only instigated the Abyssinians (Ethiopians) against Arabs but
also assembled a large fleet which helped the Abyssinian (Ethiopian) army, of seventy
thousand warriors, to effect a second conquest of Yemen in 525 A.D., under the leadership
of Eriat, who was granted rulership over Yemen, a position he held until he was
assassinated by one of his army leaders, Abraha, who, after reconciliation with the king
of Abyssinia, took rulership over Yemen and, later on, deployed his
soldiers to demolish Al-Ka‘bah, and , hence, he and his soldiers came to be known as
the "Men of the Elephant".
After the "Elephant" incident, the people of Yemen, under
the leadership of Ma‘dikarib bin Saif Dhu Yazin Al-Himyari, and through Persian
assistance, revolted against the Abyssinian (Ethiopian) invaders, restored independence
and appointed Ma‘dikarib as their king. However, Ma‘dikarib was assassinated by
an Abyssinian (Ethiopian) he used to have him around for service and protection. The
family of Dhu Yazin was thus deprived of royalty forever. Kisra, the Persian king,
appointed a Persian ruler over San‘a and thus made Yemen a Persian colony. Persian
rulers maintained rulership of Yemen until Badhan, the last of them, embraced Islam in 638
A.D., thus terminating the Persian domain over Yemen.
|
|
Ever since Korosh the Great (557-529 B.C.) united the Persians, they
ruled Iraq and its neighbourhood. Nobody could shake off their authority until Alexander
the Great vanquished their king Dara I and thus subdued the Persians in 326 B.C. Persian
lands were thenceforth divided and ruled by kings known as "the Kings of Sects",
an era which lasted until 230 A.D. Meanwhile, the Qahtanians occupied some Iraqi
territories, and were later followed by some ‘Adnanians who managed to share some
parts of Mesopotamia with them.
The Persians, under the leadership of Ardashir, who had established
the Sasanian state in 226 A.D, regained enough unity and power to subdue the Arabs living
in the vicinity of their kingdom, and force Quda‘a to leave for Syria , leaving the
people of Heerah and Anbar under the Persian domain.
During the time of Ardashir, Juzaima Alwaddah exercised rulership
over Heerah, Rabi‘a and Mudar, and Mesopotamia. Ardashir had reckoned that it was
impossible for him to rule the Arabs directly and prevent them from attacking his borders
unless he appointed as king one of them who enjoyed support and power of his tribe. He had
also seen that he could make use of them against the Byzantine kings who always used to
harass him. At the same time, the Arabs of Iraq could face the Arabs of Syria who were in
the hold of Byzantine kings. However, he deemed it fit to keep a Persian battalion under
command of the king of Heerah to be used against those Arabs who might rebel against him.
After the death of Juzaima around 268 A.D., ‘Amr bin ‘Adi
bin Nasr Al-Lakhmi was appointed as king by the Persian King Sabour bin Ardashir.
‘Amr was the first of the Lakhmi kings who ruled Heerah until the Persians appointed
Qabaz bin Fairuz in whose reign appeared someone called Mazdak, who called for
dissoluteness in social life. Qabaz, and many of his subjects, embraced Mazdak’s
religion and even called upon the king of Heerah, Al-Munzir bin Ma’ As-Sama’, to
follow after. When the latter, because of his pride and self-respect, rejected their
orders, Qabaz discharged him and nominated Harith bin ‘Amr bin Hajar Al-Kindi, who
had accepted the Mazdaki doctrine.
No sooner did Kisra Anu Shairwan succeed Qabaz than he, due to
hatred of Mazdak’s philosophy, killed Mazdak and many of his followers, restored
Munzir to the throne of Heerah and gave orders to summon under arrest Harith who sought
refuge with Al-Kalb tribe where he spent the rest of his life.
Sons of Al-Munzir bin Ma’ As-Sama’ maintained kingship a
long time until An-Nu‘man bin Al-Munzir took over. Because of a calumny borne by Zaid
bin ‘Adi Al-‘Abbadi, the Persian king got angry with An-Nu‘man and summoned
him to his palace. An-Nu‘man went secretly to Hani bin Mas‘ud, chief of Shaiban
tribe, and left his wealth and family under the latter’s protection, and then
presented himself before the Persian king, who immediately threw him into prison where he
perished. Kisra, then, appointed Eyas bin Qubaisa At-Ta’i as king of Heerah. Eyas was
ordered to tell Hani bin Mas‘ud to deliver An-Nu‘man’s charge up to
Kisra.
No sooner than had the Persian king received the fanatically motivated rejection on the
part of the Arab chief, he declared war against the tribe of Shaiban and mobilized his
troops and warriors under the leadership of King Eyas to a place called Dhee Qar which
witnessed a most furious battle wherein the Persians were severely routed by the Arabs for
the first time in history. That was very soon after the birth of Prophet Muhammad
[pbuh]
eight months after Eyas bin Qubaisah’s rise to power over Heerah.
After Eyas, a Persian ruler was appointed over Heerah, but in 632
A.D. the authority there returned to the family of Lukhm when Al-Munzir Al-Ma‘rur
took over. Hardly had the latter’s reign lasted for eight months when Khalid bin
Al-Waleed fell upon him with Muslim soldiers. [Muhadrat Tareekh
Al-Umam Al-Islamiyah 1/29-32]
|
|
In the process of the tribal emigrations, some septs of Quda‘a
reached the borders of Syria where they settled down. They belonged to the family of
Sulaih bin Halwan, of whose offspring were the sons of Duj‘am bin Sulaih known as
Ad-Duja‘ima. Such septs of Quda‘a were used by the Byzantines in the defence of
the Byzantine borders against both Arab Bedouin raiders and the Persians, and enjoyed
autonomy for a considerable phase of time which is said to have lasted for the whole
second century A.D. One of their most famous kings was Zyiad bin Al-Habula. Their
authority however came to an end upon defeat by the Ghassanides who were consequently
granted the proxy rulership over the Arabs of Syria and had Dumat Al-Jandal as their
headquarters, which lasted until the battle of Yarmuk in the year 13 A.H. Their last king
Jabala bin Al-Aihum embraced Islam during the reign of the Chief of Believers, ‘Umar
bin Al-Khattab [R]. [Muhadrat Tareekh Al-Umam Al-Islamiyah
1/34; Tareekh Ard Al-Qur'an 2/80-82]
|
|
Ishmael [AWS] administered authority over Makkah as well as
custodianship of the Holy Sanctuary throughout his lifetime. Upon his death, at the age of
137, two of his sons, Nabet and Qidar, succeeded him. Later on, their maternal
grandfather, Mudad bin ‘Amr Al-Jurhumi took over, thus transferring rulership over
Makkah to the tribe of Jurhum, preserving a venerable position, though very little
authority for Ishmael’s sons due to their father’s exploits in building the Holy
Sanctuary, a position they held until the decline of the tribe of Jurhum shortly before
the rise of Bukhtanassar. [Ibn Hisham 1/111]
The political role of the ‘Adnanides had begun to gain firmer
grounds in Makkah, which could be clearly attested by the fact that upon
Bukhtanassar’s first invasion of the Arabs in ‘Dhati ‘Irq’, the leader
of the Arabs was not from Jurhum. [Qalb Jazeerat Al-Arab, p.230]
Upon Bukhtanassar’s second invasion in 587 B.C., however, the
‘Adnanides were frightened out to Yemen, while Burmia An-Nabi fled to Syria with
Ma‘ad, but when Bukhtanassar’s pressure lessened, Ma‘ad returned to Makkah
to find none of the tribe of Jurhum except Jursham bin Jalhamah, whose daughter,
Mu‘ana, was given to Ma‘ad as wife who, later, had a son by him named
Nizar. [Rahmat-ul-lil'alameen, 2/48]
On account of difficult living conditions and destitution prevalent
in Makkah, the tribe of Jurhum began to ill-treat visitors of the Holy Sanctuary and
extort its funds, which aroused resentment and hatred of the ‘Adnanides (sons of Bakr
bin ‘Abd Munaf bin Kinana) who, with the help of the tribe of Khuza‘a that had
come to settle in a neighbouring area called Marr Az-Zahran, invaded Jurhum and frightened
them out of Makkah leaving rulership to Quda‘a in the middle of the second century
A.D.
Upon leaving Makkah, Jurhum filled up the well of Zamzam, levelled
its place and buried a great many things in it. ‘Amr bin Al-Harith bin Mudad
Al-Jurhumi was reported by Ibn Ishaq, the well-known historian, to have buried the two
gold deer together with the Black Stone as well as a lot of jewelry and swords in
Zamzam,
prior to their sorrowful escape to Yemen. [Ibn Hisham 1/114,115]
Ishmael’s epoch is estimated to have lasted for twenty
centuries B.C., which means that Jurhum stayed in Makkah for twenty-one centuries and held
rulership there for about twenty centuries.
Upon defeat of Jurhum, the tribe of Khuza‘a monopolized
rulership over Makkah. Mudar tribes, however, enjoyed three privileges:
The First: Leading pilgrims from ‘Arafat to Muzdalifah
and then from Mina to the ‘Aqabah Stoning Pillar. This was the authority of the
family of Al-Ghawth bin Murra, one of the septs of Elias bin Mudar, who were called
‘Sofa’. This privilege meant that the pilgrims were not allowed to throw
stones at Al-‘Aqabah until one of the ‘Sofa’ men did that. When they had
finished stoning and wanted to leave the valley of Mina, ‘Sofa’ men stood on the
two sides of Al-‘Aqabah and nobody would pass that position until the men of
‘Sofa’ passed and cleared the way for the pilgrims. When Sofa perished, the
family of Sa‘d bin Zaid Manat from Tamim tribe took over.
The Second: Al-Ifadah (leaving for Mina after
Muzdalifah) on sacrifice morning, and this was the responsibility of the family of
Adwan.
The Third: Deferment of the sacred months, and this was the
responsibility of the family of Tamim bin ‘Adi from Bani Kinana.
Khuza‘a’s reign in Makkah lasted for three hundred years,
during which, the ‘Adnanides spread all over Najd and the sides of Bahrain and Iraq,
while small septs of Quraish remained on the sides of Makkah; they were Haloul, Harum and
some families of Kinana. They enjoyed no privileges in Makkah or in the Sacred House until
the appearance of Qusai bin Kilab, whose father is said to have died when he was still a
baby, and whose mother was subsequently married to Rabi‘a bin Haram, from the tribe
of Bani ‘Udhra. Rabi‘a took his wife and her baby to his homeland on the borders
of Syria. When Qusai became a young man, he returned to Makkah, which was ruled by Halil
bin Habsha from Khuza‘a, who gave Qusai his daughter, Hobba, as wife. After
Halil’s death, a war between Khuza‘a and Quraish broke out and resulted in
Qusai’s taking hold of Makkah and the Sacred House. [Ibn Hisham
1/117]
|
The First: Having noticed the spread of his offspring,
increase of his property and exalt of his honour after Halil’s death, Qusai found
himself more entitled to shoulder responsibility of rulership over Makkah and
custodianship of the Sacred House than the tribes of Khuza‘a and Bani
Bakr. He also
advocated that Quraish were the chiefs of Ishmael’s descendants. Therefore he
consulted some men from Quraish and Kinana concerning his desire to evacuate Khuza‘a
and Bani Bakr from Makkah. They took a liking to his opinion and supported him.
The Second: Khuza‘a claimed that Halil requested Qusai
to hold custodianship of Al-Ka‘bah and rulership over Makkah after his death.
The Third: Halil gave the right of Al-Ka‘bah service to
his daughter Hobba and appointed Abu Ghabshan Al-Khuza‘i to function as her agent
whereof. Upon Halil’s death, Qusai bought this right for a leather bag of wine, which
aroused dissatisfaction among the men of Khuza‘a and they tried to keep the
custodianship of the Sacred House away from Qusai. The latter, however, with the help of
Quraish and Kinana, managed to take over and even to expel Khuza‘a completely from
Makkah. [Rahmat-ul-lil'alameen 2/55]
Whatever the truth might have been, the whole affair resulted in the
deprivation of Sofa of their privileges, previously mentioned, evacuation of Khuza‘a
and Bakr from Makkah and transfer of rulership over Makkah and custodianship of the Holy
Sanctuary to Qusai, after fierce wars between Qusai and Khuza‘a inflicting heavy
casualties on both sides, reconciliation and then arbitration of Ya‘mur bin
‘Awf, from the tribe of Bakr, whose judgement entailed eligibility of Qusai’s
rulership over Makkah and custodianship of the Sacred House, Qusai’s irresponsibility
for Khuza‘a’s blood shed, and imposition of blood money on Khuza‘a.
Qusai’s reign over Makkah and the Sacred House began in 440 A.D. and allowed him, and
Quraish afterwards, absolute rulership over Makkah and undisputed custodianship of the
Sacred House to which Arabs from all over Arabia came to pay homage.
Qusai brought his kinspeople to Makkah and allocated it to them,
allowing Quraish some dwellings there. An-Nus’a, the families of Safwan,
Adwan, Murra
bin ‘Awf preserved the same rights they used to enjoy before his arrival. [Ibn Hisham 1/124]
A significant achievement credited to Qusai was the establishment of
An-Nadwa House (an assembly house) on the northern side of Al-Ka‘bah Mosque, to serve
as a meeting place for Quraish. This very house had benefited Quraish a lot because it
secured unity of opinions amongst them and cordial solution to their problem. [Ibn Hisham 1/125; Akhbar Al-Kiram p.152]
Qusai however enjoyed the following privileges of leadership and
honour:
- Presiding over An-Nadwa House meetings where consultations relating
to serious issues were conducted, and marriage contracts were announced.
- The Standard: He monopolized in his hand issues relevant to war
launching.
- Doorkeeping of Al-Ka‘bah: He was the only one eligible to open
its gate, and was responsible for its service and protection.
- Providing water for the Pilgrims: This means that he used to fill
basins sweetened by dates and raisins for the pilgrims to drink.
- Feeding Pilgrims: This means making food for pilgrims who could not
afford it. Qusai even imposed on Quraish annual land tax, paid at the season of
pilgrimage, for food. [Ibn Hisham 1/130]
It is noteworthy however that Qusai singled out ‘Abd
Manaf, a
son of his, for honour and prestige though he was not his elder son (‘Abd Ad-Dar
was), and entrusted him with such responsibilities as chairing of An-Nadwa House, the
standard, the doorkeeping of Al-Ka‘bah, providing water and food for pilgrims. Due to
the fact that Qusai’s deeds were regarded as unquestionable and his orders
inviolable, his death gave no rise to conflicts among his sons, but it later did among his
grand children, for no sooner than ‘Abd Munaf had died, his sons began to have rows
with their cousins —sons of ‘Abd Ad-Dar, which would have given rise to
dissension and fighting among the whole tribe of Quraish, had it not been for a peace
treaty whereby posts were reallocated so as to preserve feeding and providing water for
pilgrims for the sons of ‘Abd Munaf; while An-Nadwa House, the flag and the
doorkeeping of Al-Ka‘bah were maintained for the sons of ‘Abd Ad-Dar. The sons
of ‘Abd Munaf, however, cast the lot for their charge, and consequently left the
charge of food and water giving to Hashim bin ‘Abd Munaf, upon whose death, the
charge was taken over by a brother of his called Al-Muttalib bin ‘Abd Manaf and
afterwards by ‘Abd Al-Muttalib bin Hashim, the Prophet’s grandfather, whose sons
assumed this position until the rise of Islam, during which ‘Abbas bin
‘Abdul-Muttalib was in charge. [Ibn Hisham 1/129-179]
Many other posts were distributed among people of Quraish for
establishing the pillars of a new democratic petite state with government offices and
councils similar to those of today. Enlisted as follows are some of these posts.
- Casting the lots for the idols was allocated to Bani Jumah.
- Noting of offers and sacrifices, settlement of disputes and relevant
issues were to lie in the hands of Bani Sahm.
- Consultation was to go to Bani Asad.
- Organization of blood-money and fines was with Bani Tayim.
- Bearing the national banner was with Bani Omaiyah.
- The military institute, footmen and cavalry would be Bani
Makhzum’s responsibility.
- Bani ‘Adi would function as foreign mediators. [Tareekh Ard Al-Qur'an 2/104-106]
|
|
We have previously mentioned the Qahtanide and ‘Adnanide
emigrations, and division of Arabia between these two tribes. Those tribes dwelling near
Heerah were subordinate to the Arabian king of Heerah, while those dwelling in the Syrian
semi-desert were under domain of the Arabian Ghassanide king, a sort of dependency that
was in reality formal rather than actual. However, those living in the hinder deserts
enjoyed full autonomy.
These tribes in fact had heads chosen by the whole tribe which was a
demi-government based on tribal solidarity and collective interests in defence of land and
property.
Heads of tribes enjoyed dictatorial privileges similar to those of
kings, and were rendered full obedience and subordination in both war and peace. Rivalry
among cousins for rulership, however, often drove them to outdo one another in
entertaining guests, affecting generosity, wisdom and chivalry for the sole purpose of
outranking their rivals, and gaining fame among people especially poets who were the
official spokesmen at the time.
Heads of tribes and masters had special claims to spoils of war such
as the quarter of the spoils, whatever he chose for himself, or found on his way back or
even the remaining indivisible spoils.
|
|
The three Arab regions adjacent to foreigners suffered great
weakness and inferiority. The people there were either masters or slaves, rulers or
subordinates. Masters, especially the foreigners, had claim to every advantage; slaves had
nothing but responsibilities to shoulder. In other words, arbitrary autocratic rulership
brought about encroachment on the rights of subordinates, ignorance, oppression, iniquity,
injustice and hardship, and turning them into people groping in darkness and ignorance,
viz., fertile land which rendered its fruits to the rulers and men of power to
extravagantly dissipate on their pleasures and enjoyments, whims and desires, tyranny and
aggression. The tribes living near these regions were fluctuating between Syria and Iraq,
whereas those living inside Arabia were disunited and governed by tribal conflicts and
racial and religious disputes.
They had neither a king to sustain their independence nor a
supporter to seek advice from, or depend upon, in hardships.
The rulers of Hijaz, however, were greatly esteemed and
respected by the Arabs, and were considered as rulers and servants of the religious
centre. Rulership of Hijaz was, in fact, a mixture of secular and official precedence as
well as religious leadership. They ruled among the Arabs in the name of religious
leadership and always monopolized the custodianship of the Holy Sanctuary and its
neighbourhood. They looked after the interests of Al-Ka‘bah visitors and were in
charge of putting Abraham’s code into effect. They even had such offices and
departments like those of the parliaments of today. However, they were too weak to carry
the heavy burden, as this evidently came to light during the Abyssinian (Ethiopian)
invasion.
|
| |
|
