Chapter L (3)

[123] Showeil was an old dotard. When Kerâmat said to him, ‘What carest thou for an old creature like me?’ he replied, ‘I am not my mother’s son if I take less for thee than a thousand dirhems.’ She feigned to think it much, but paid it down. When she had gone, his companions laughed at him for asking such a trifling sum for so distinguished a captive. He went to Khâlid: ‘I meant,’ he said, ‘to ask the highest figure that there was; but now they tell me that numbers go beyond a thousand, and that I did not ask enough. Give me, therefore, a fitting ransom.’ Khâlid said: ‘Thou purposedst one thing, my friend, and the Lord purposed another. I judge by what appeareth, and leave thy purposes alone.’ I give the story as I find it, absurd as it appears, for the lady is said to have been fourscore years of age. The romance of early love, at any rate, was soon changed into a more sordid passion. The tale, though surrounded by marvels (_e.g._ Mahomet’s foretelling the conquest of Hîra), is, no doubt, founded on some slight substratum of fact. The lady’s age must be exaggerated as well as the simplicity of Showeil, since she was the daughter of Abd al Masîh who headed the deputation from the city.

[124] Tradition gives with considerable zest a somewhat coarse and childish conversation between Khâlid and the aged Abd al Masîh (called Ibn Backîla, ‘son of the bean-stalk,’ from his green dress), who headed the deputation. ‘Whence comest thou?’ asked the conqueror. ‘From my mother’s womb.’ ‘And where art thou now?’ ‘In my clothes,’ and so on. Asked what was the most wonderful thing he had ever seen, he said, ‘The road from Hîra to Damascus, which was lined in my early days with villages all along, so that a woman could travel on it alone, taking with her a single cake; but that time hath long passed by.’ His attendant carried a little bag containing a quick poison, which his master was prepared to swallow if any indignity had been shown him. Khâlid took and swallowed it, saying that no soul could die before its time. As no ill effect followed, the chief was lost in amazement, and declared that Khâlid must be irresistible. Marvellous tales of this sort are, however, very rare now. Some touching verses are recorded as sung by Ibn Backîla on the fall of Hîra. Here is a specimen:--

Now that the Princes of the house of Mundzir are gone, shall I ever
again behold the royal herd of camels returning at eve from the
pastures of Khawarnac and Sedîr?
Now that the horsemen of Nomân are passed away, shall I ever again
feed the young she-camel on the pastures between Mecca and Hafîr?
Like a flock of goats on a stormy day, we are scattered by the Beni
Maád (the invading Moslems), even as pieces of camels slaughtered
for the feast.
Heretofore our homes were sacred, and we like the teats of a
well-filled udder,
Yielding tribute at the appointed times to the Chosroes, and
imposts in cattle and gold.
Alas! even so is the changeful wheel (bucket) of the well of
fortune. Now the day brightens with joy and gladness, and now it
is dark with sorrow and grief.

Masûdi speaks of the Ibâdites (the Christian aborigines of Hîra) as still in his time inhabiting this neighbourhood.

[125] For the field of Mûta, where Khâlid rallied the fragments of the Moslem army broken by the Roman legions, see _Life of Mahomet_, chap. xxiii.

[126] The ‘Service of Victory’ consisted of eight continuous Rakâats, or series of prostrations, with the appointed Sura of Victory.

In this first campaign there is no mention of any Moslems killed. There were, no doubt, casualties among the rank and file of the Bedouin tribes, but these are taken little account of. If any ‘Companion,’ or leader of eminence, had been slain, the fact would, no doubt, have been mentioned. We must remember that most of the soldiers from Medîna had returned to their homes from Yemâma, so that there may not have been many Companions present with Khâlid at this time.

With reference to Khâlid’s speech, I should notice that it was the tendency of the Kûfa and Bussora schools to magnify the difficulties of the conquest of Irâc in their own interest, as enhancing their claims upon the revenues of the _Sawâd_, or surrounding province. In this sense there is a fragment from the Arab warrior Amr ibn Cacâa:--

The Lord water the ground where lie buried the heroes of Irâc
Upon the dusty plain and beneath the sandy mounds!

And then he mentions in verse the various fields in which they had fallen in this first campaign from Hafîr to the siege of Hîra.

[127] These treaties were mostly abrogated by the rebellion that shortly after swept over the land. But some of the chieftains remained steadfast, as Salûba ibn Nestûba, ‘the lord of Coss Nâtick.’ His treaty is given verbatim by Tabari, with the witnesses, &c., copied, probably, from the original. He had to pay a tribute of 10,000 dirhems, to be contributed rateably by his people according to each man’s means, besides a tax of four dirhems per head (apparently a Persian tax, as it is called _harazat Chosra_).

The terms of these treaties were made by Khâlid, _with the consent and approval of the army_, showing how Khâlid recognised the dominancy of the democratic element.

[128] The terms of the discharge are given by Tabari, who also mentions nine of the Moslem chiefs employed to attest the receipts.

[129] One of the great channels drawn above Babylon from the Euphrates, which flows across the peninsula and falls into the Tigris.

[130] P. 68.

[131] His name was Shîrazâd, for we come now constantly on _Persian_ names. The story is that the Moslems were told to shoot at the _eyes_ of the garrison. And so a thousand of the enemy had their eyes transfixed; whence the siege was called ‘The action of the Eyes.’ I give the tradition as I find it--not pretending to offer an explanation--excepting that the same word stands for _eyes_ and _fountains_.

[132] Still called by that name (pl. Felâlij), meaning the district about Anbâr irrigated by channels from the Euphrates. The army is said to have passed by the plain of _Kerbala_, which, however, is a good deal south of the position I assign to Ain Tamar (‘The Fountain of Date-palms’).

[133] See above, p. 31. The Beni Taghlib, it will be remembered, retired into Mesopotamia with Sajâh after her marriage with Moseilama.

[134] The Companion was Omeir. He had been one of the refugees to Abyssinia in the persecution of the Coreish, and was therefore a very early convert. A citizen (Ansâr) was also buried here; it is not distinctly stated, but I infer, that he too was killed in the action. This is the first mention of anyone killed on the Moslem side in the Irâc campaign, though, as said before, loss in the rank and file of the Bedouin levies was not of such importance as necessarily to require distinct notice.

[135] Another of these youths was Hemrân, who became the Mowla, or freedman, of Othman. When surprised in their cloister, they declared themselves to be ‘hostages,’ perhaps strangers from a distance, detained to complete their education there.

[136] Welîd was the son of that Ocba who had been put to death by Mahomet after the battle of Bedr (_Life of Mahomet_, p. 239). We shall hear more of him by and by.

[137] The distance must have been over 300 miles, besides the detour rendered necessary by the intervening desert (the _Nefûd_ of red sand, see Lady Blount’s _Pilgrimage to Nejd_); and must have taken, C. de Perceval says, not less than ten days; with any other than Khâlid, I should have said a good deal more.

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

[139] So the ordinary narrative. But there is another account that Okeidar was sent a prisoner to Medîna; and being subsequently released by Omar, settled near Ain Tamar, at a place which, in memory of his former home, he named _Dûma_. The name _may_ have given rise to the tradition; though, on the other hand, the execution of Okeidar is in keeping with Khâlid’s sanguinary character. For his first encounter with Khâlid, see _Life of Mahomet_, p. 458.

[140] Acra was chief of the Beni Temîm, old allies of the Beni Kelb, who otherwise would have shared the common fate.

[141] The demonstration was probably forced. The citizens, we are told, murmured secretly,--‘We thought that they had passed by, like other Arab raiders; their return is the breaking out of a fresh calamity;’ and so, before long, they found it.

[142] The girl’s name was Sahba. Aly had recently received into his harem another maiden taken captive at Yemâma; being of the Beni Hanifa, the son, Mohammed, whom she bore to him, was called _the Hanifite_. Thus, though he sat inactive at home, Aly took his full share of the captive ladies. He also married in this year Omâma, a granddaughter of the Prophet (being a child of Abul Aâs and Zeinab) and niece of his deceased wife Fâtima.

I have noticed these expeditions very briefly, as the similarity of detail becomes tedious. The Persian generals Zermihr and Rozaba, were attacked by Cacâa and slain before they could form a junction with the Beni Taghlib, but the fugitives joined the Bedouin camp at Modeya in the desert. Thereupon, Khâlid organised three parties to converge at a set time by night upon the Arab encampment, which was surprised, and left covered with the dead, ‘like a field of slaughtered sheep.’ The chief, Hodzeil, escaped.

Among the slain were two Bedouin chiefs who, having embraced Islam, held an amnesty from the Caliph. Omar took the occasion again to blame Khâlid for his indiscriminating vengeance; but Abu Bekr, as before, justified him; ‘for those,’ he said, ‘who dwell in the encampment of an enemy must take their chance with him.’ As, however, they were both said to have called aloud the Moslem shibboleth, their families were set free and taken care of, and blood-money paid. Omar treasured up these things against Khâlid.

The similar stratagem of a convergent night attack was repeatedly resorted to at Thinia, Zomeil, and Bishr, not a soul escaping the sword but the women and children. Horcus, a famous chief of the desert, was surprised and slain while drinking his last draught of wine with his daughters, who were carried away captive. The subject is a favourite one, and the bacchanalian verses sung by Horcus in his last cups, with a swan-like anticipation of impending fate, are assigned to several different occasions.

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

[144] No details are given of this great battle, excepting the fabulous number of 100,000 slain.

[145] In the troublous times that followed, almost all the country rose and committed acts of disloyalty which, with one or two exceptions, cancelled the treaties and engagements now entered into by Khâlid with the Dihcâns.

[146] According to some traditions, Abu Bekr deputed Omar to preside at the pilgrimage this year. But the general opinion is that Abu Bekr did so himself, leaving Othmân during his absence in charge of Medîna. This is the more likely, as, owing to the troubled state of the peninsula, he had been unable to go on pilgrimage the previous year.

[147] See above, p. 53.

[148] Near to Castal (which C. de Perceval makes Callirhoe) and towards Abila but probably not so far north; the advance on Syria being made (as always) on the coast of the Dead Sea.

[149] Dzul Kelâa, with his immediate clan, remained firm in the rebellion of Yemen, and aided Ikrima in its suppression: see above, p. 54. Ikrima’s column was called ‘the brigade of substitutes,’ because on his return from the long campaign in the south, his soldiers were allowed furlough to their homes, on condition of their giving substitutes for the new expedition in the north.

[150] Amru is said to have had the promise of the command over the tribes of Odzra and Sád-Hodzeim (branches of the Beni Codhâa) from Mahomet when he deputed him to Omân, and Abu Bekr fulfilled the promise. His present mission must have been subsequent to the affair at Dûma, as Welîd, on his return to Medîna from Irâc, was sent to help Iyâdh at Dûma. This further appears from the notice that Welîd, on joining the Syrian force, left as his _locum tenens_ over the Beni Codhâa, Imral Cays ‘from Dûma’; implying that Dûma was by this time a Mahometan possession.

[151] Marj al Soffar is to the north of the Yermûk on the road to Damascus, and is frequently mentioned in the subsequent campaign. It was not far from Jâbia in the Jaulân (Gaulonitis) which became the grand rendezvous for the Moslem armies, and the point of departure both for northern Syria and Palestine. The journey from Medîna to Syria was always, as now, by the country to the east of the Dead Sea, very much what is the present pilgrim route from Damascus to Mecca.

Some accounts say that Khâlid himself was killed in the engagement, which, according to the wont of Saracen defeats, is slurred over with a few unsatisfactory and garbled words. According to other traditions, Khâlid was degraded because, in returning from Yemen, he delayed to swear allegiance to Abu Bekr, and abused Aly and Othmân for allowing the government to pass out of the house of Abd Menâf. This is altogether improbable. The account in the text is the received one and also the most consistent. But the dates are all uncertain, for none are reliable till after the battle of Ajnadein.

[152] Shorahbîl had fought under the great Khâlid at Yemâma, and thence accompanied him to Irâc. Deputed at this crisis to Medîna with despatches or booty, he there obtained this command.

[153] The Scriptural expressions of ‘the Promised Land,’ ‘the Land of Blessing,’ &c., are applied in the Corân to Palestine; and it remained long the most coveted destination of the Bedouin levies.

[154] The strength of the four columns is usually given as 27,000, some authorities adding 3,000 rallied from Khâlid’s force, and some not. Tradition represents Abu Bekr as sending them forth each to reduce a given district in Syria--Abu Obeida, Hims; Yezîd, Damascus; Shorahbîl, the Jordan; Amru, Palestine. A palpable anticipation. Abu Bekr’s vision was yet bounded by the Roman army, and the issue doubtful.

[155] Ar, or Rabbah of Moab.

[156] The Dothan of Joseph’s story is placed by Robinson north of Nablûs, near the plain of Megiddo. If this be the same, Yezîd must have penetrated into the centre of Palestine, which at this early period of the campaign is not likely. But the whole account is very brief and confused. It seems, also, improbable that Abu Obeida should have advanced quite so far as Jâbia, while as yet the Roman battalions dominated the country north of the Yermûk.

[157] The names of the Roman commanders are given as Jâreja (George?), Cayear ibn Nestûs, Darâckis, and Tadzâric (Theodoric). Tradition pretends that Heraclius, half persuaded of the truth of Islam, was desirous to cede to the Moslems the plain of Syria up to the mountains of Asia Minor, but was hindered by the perversity of his grandees.

[158] The way out, however, could have been only partially closed, for reinforcements reached the Romans without hindrance. The ravine was probably passable at some points, though, on the whole, a sufficient defence against the Arabs.

[159] The country is well described by Laurence Oliphant in his _Land of Gilead_, and the picture at p. 87 gives an admirable idea of the gorge surrounding our battle-field. ‘The Yermûk,’ he says, ‘at this point is just sinking below the level of the plain through which it has been meandering, and in the course of the next mile plunges down, a series of cascades, into the stupendous gorges through which it winds, until it ultimately falls into the Jordan below Gadara.’ The grand old military road, still bearing traces of wheeled carriages, bifurcates five and twenty miles south of Damascus. The right branch leads S.W. to Palestine, crossing the Yermûk at Gadara; the other continues to run south towards Jerash and Bostra, and so onward till it is lost in the Hajj or pilgrim-route into Arabia. The latter was the road always traversed by the Saracen armies as they marched into Syria and Palestine; and I assume that the battle was fought at a point some 30 miles east of Gadara where this road crosses the Yermûk. The same road northward leads to Jâbia (Tell Jâbieh); and Jâbieh became the grand base of operations both for Syria and for Palestine; for Palestine was never approached from Arabia but by this circuitous route. The Arabs, we are told, do not use the Roman road, because probably it is in so rugged and ruinous a condition. But they always use the bridges when passable; and Mr. Oliphant tells us of an ‘old Roman bridge of nine arches, one of which has fallen and has not been repaired,’ over the Yermûk in this vicinity, p. 87. The researches now being prosecuted to the east of the Jordan may throw farther light on this great battle-field, the site of which it may be possible yet to identify.

[160] Some authorities represent the transfer as a punishment for the surreptitious visit to Mecca; but this is at variance with the terms of the order, as well as opposed to the whole tenor of Abu Bekr’s forbearing treatment of Khâlid.

[161] The numbers of Khâlid’s column are variously stated at 9,000 and 6,000; and again as low as 800, 600, and 500. But the smaller numbers are probably intended to indicate only that part of his force which formed the flying column in his adventurous march across the desert: the rest, I assume, followed more leisurely and by an easier route. In point of fact, 6,000 returned the following year to Irâc, though they had been thinned by the Syrian campaign.

Some put the march of Khâlid a month earlier. Ibn Ishâc says that before leaving, Khâlid despatched the sick and infirm, with the women and children, to Medîna, with the last consignment of royal prize, as if he apprehended insecurity during his absence.

[162] The great sea of red sand has been spiritedly described by Lady Anne Blount in her _Pilgrimage to Nejd_; her route (reversed) was the same as Khâlid’s, from Irâc as far as Corâcar, only her circuit led her farther south to Hâil, and nearer the mountain range of Ajâ and Selma.

[163] Such is the received account of this extraordinary march, the memory of which is also preserved in contemporary verse. Ibn Ishâc speaks of _twenty_ camels, which would have gone but a little way. Other accounts give the number of camels at so many per hundred lances, without mentioning the strength of the column. As before explained, Khâlid probably took the perilous route with only the lighter part of his force, leaving the bulky and heavy portion to follow by the ordinary road, along the Wady Sirhân, after he had cleared the Bostra approach. The lips of the camels were slit or cut off (according to other accounts bound up) to prevent their ruminating and the consequent digestion and assimilation of the water in their stomachs.

[164] They emerged at Suwâ near Tadmor, and forthwith fell upon the Beni Bahra, a Christian tribe, a portion of which was engaged in the defence of Dûma the year before. Here again we have the bacchanalian death-song of Horcûs mentioned before. We must receive the account of Khâlid’s circuit even after the passage of the desert, with some reserve. He is said to have plundered Cariatein and Huwarein on the way from Tadmor; to have made terms with the Beni Codhâa at Cussum; then to have passed over the ‘Mount of the Eagle’ (so called from his halting on it with the Prophet’s black flag), within sight of Damascus; to have plundered Marj Râhat, and a convent in the _Ghûta_ or plain of Damascus, killing the men and taking the females prisoners; and so on to Bostra, which, after some opposition, came to terms. If this be all true, he may have at Bostra formed a junction with the body of his column left behind at Corâcar. But it is all very vague, and with a dash of the marvellous.

Ibn Ishâc gives a somewhat different account. He mixes up former victories (_e.g._ the capture of the forty Christian youths, of Aly’s slave-girl, &c.) with this campaign; and he makes the storming of Bostra to follow the junction with Abu Obeida. I find no authority whatever for the romance of the taking of Bostra as given by Ockley and followed by Gibbon.

[165] In the silence of Byzantine chroniclers we must make the best of the figures. 80,000 were ‘prisoners,’ either simply so or in chains; 40,000 were ‘chained together to fight to the death;’ 40,000 were ‘tied by their turbans;’ and 80,000 free and unencumbered. In the Armenian general _Bahân_ we recognise the Βάαν of Theophanes; a rare (one might say a unique) coincidence.

[166] The imagination of the crusading army was inflamed by tales and visions of the dying soldiers each tended by two black-eyed girls of Paradise, who, wiping the sweat and dust of battle from the face of their spouse, welcomed and clasped him in their fond embrace.

[167] It is doubtful whether Abu Bekr’s commission to Khâlid on his transfer did not at the same time nominate him to the supreme command of the Syrian forces. Ibn Khaldûn reads so; and likewise the tradition that Omar, in eventually deposing him, appointed Abu Obeida similarly to the supreme command. If so, Khâlid may have chosen not to excite jealousy by assuming the supremacy at once, but rather to have obtained it by consent. But our information is, at this early period, vague and incomplete.

[168] The tale is full of childish matter. The following is an outline from which the reader may draw his own conclusion. When the two armies were drawn up for battle, Jâreja, riding forth from the Roman ranks, called out to Khâlid as if challenging him to single combat. They drew so near to one another, midway between the two armies, that their horses’ necks touched. Having pledged their word to each other, a conversation ensued. Jâreja asked Khâlid why he was called the ‘Sword of God,’ and whether a sword had really been sent down to him from heaven. Khâlid smiled, and expounded to him the basis and practice of Islam. The ingenuous Roman, convinced, forthwith reversed his shield; whereupon Khâlid, leading him away to his tent, sprinkled clean water upon him and taught him to pray,--Jâreja following him, with the prescribed prostrations and words, in two Rakáats. Meanwhile his followers, supposing that he had attacked Khâlid and been decoyed away by him, advanced rapidly on the Moslem line, which at first gave way, and both sides became promiscuously engaged. Then Khâlid, with Jâreja now upon his side, issued forth and at the head of their troops charged the Romans and drove them back; Jâreja fought by the side of Khâlid all day long, and in the evening was slain, dying a faithful martyr, though he had prayed but once. The tale is probably founded on fact, and framed so as to cover the defection of some Roman general--perhaps a Bedouin,--who, by previous arrangement, came over to Khâlid on the day of battle, with a following, perhaps, of Syrians from the Roman camp. _Jâreja_ may be the Arab rendering here for George.

[169] Battalion or Kardûs. The number of battalions now formed is variously given at from thirty to forty. The leader of each is named; but probably tradition has merely selected the most likely names, for in other respects there is a great want of detail in the narrative.

[170] The person performing this duty was called _Al Cass_, the Declaimer. The following is a specimen of the address by which Abu Sofiân stirred up each battalion. ‘Lord! these be the champions of Arabia, the defenders of the Faith. Those yonder are the champions of Rome, the defenders of Idolatry. O Lord! this is a day to be held in remembrance among Thy great days. Wherefore send down help upon Thy servants and succour them.’

[171] Dhirâr is a favourite hero with the pseudo-Wackidy and other romancers, who represent him as performing the most marvellous feats in the field. Ikrima’s war-song was:--

A noble maid, both fair and tender,
Knows that her knight can well defend her.

[172] Abu Sofiân himself lost an eye; it was pierced by an arrow, which was with difficulty withdrawn. There is a foolish tale that Abdallah, son of Zobeir, then a boy, overheard Abu Sofiân, who, with a company of the Coreish, stood upon a knoll, applauding the Romans when they advanced, and crying, ‘Out upon you,’ when they fell back, as if siding with them. He ran and told his father, who laughed, saying, ‘It is mere spite, for we are a deal better than the Romans.’ This is a manifest anti-Omeyyad tale, for tradition is almost unanimous that Abu Sofiân, notwithstanding his age, distinguished himself that day by his valour and his ardour in stirring up the troops (_Ibn Khaldûn_, p. 85); and indeed it would have been altogether against his interest to have done otherwise.

[173] The disaster, making every allowance for exaggeration, must have been appalling. We are told that there were driven over the precipice 80,000 ‘chained’ and 40,000 free soldiers, besides those that perished by the sword.

[174] The order given by Omar is couched in terms which would appear to imply that Khâlid was in supreme command in Syria, from which command he was now deposed, and Abu Obeida substituted in his room. This is not consistent with the previous narrative. It is possible, indeed, to construe the order as deposing Khâlid simply from his command over his own Irâc contingent, and transferring it to Abu Obeida. But it is certain that Abu Obeida from this time became in permanence the Ameer, or governor-general and commander-in-chief of Syria. See _Ibn Khaldûn_, p. 86, and previous note p. 106.

[175] The date is fixed by that of Abu Bekr’s death (August 22); _twenty days_ after which we are told that the battle was fought. But the messenger bringing the news of the Caliph’s death could hardly have taken more than half that time for so urgent a journey. We may safely, therefore, place the action about the end of August (Jumâd II.); or, rather, following other traditions, early in Rajab, that is, the beginning of September.

[176] The new king is called otherwise Shahrîzân and Shahrîzâz, son of Ardshîr. His commander is called Hormuz _Jâdzoweih_.

[177] The poet Farazdac (who flourished shortly after), enumerating the various families of the Beni Bekr ibn Wâil, when he comes to the clan of Mothanna, describes him as ‘the hero who slew the elephant at the battle of Babylon.’ So also Abda, a Bedouin poet, who, being in search of his mistress, chanced to be present as a wayfarer at the battle, makes a similar reference to the slaughter of the elephant.

[178] The delay may have been occasioned by Abu Bekr’s sickness, or the proposal to employ the apostate Arabs in the campaign may have been difficult to answer.

[179] The Council House (Dar ul Nadwâ) built by Cossaí. _Life of Mahomet_, Introduction.

[180] From this account it would appear that Abu Bekr did not perform the full pilgrimage to Mina and Arafât. Some authorities make Omar to preside at this pilgrimage, others Abd al Rahmân. Possibly Abu Bekr performed only the Omra or Lesser Pilgrimage (_Ibid._ p. xii.), and left Omar to fulfil the other rites.

There is a curious incident quoted by an early writer as an authority to prove that Abu Bekr was himself present. Some one bit the ear of a man at the pilgrimage in play. Abu Bekr sent the case to Omar as judge, and he summoned a surgeon. Thereupon Abu Bekr recited, as in point, a story of the Prophet, who, having made the gift of a slave to his aunt, bade her not to bring him up as a surgeon, lest in the discharge of his profession he should be subject to reprisals for injuries done in surgical operations.

[181] That is, the year in which the Viceroy of Yemen besieged Mecca. He had in his train an elephant; and the year, A.D. 570, is therefore called ‘the year of the Elephant.’ _Ibid._ p. xxvi.

[182] There is a tradition that Abu Bekr’s illness was owing to poison, given to him and to Attâb and another, which, being a slow but deadly drug, did not take effect till a year after. No details are given; the tale is evidently apocryphal, and based on the desire (common in those early days) to give to Abu Bekr the honour of martyrdom.

[183] Meaning the Divine physician.

[184] The tradition proceeds: Abu Bekr answered, ‘The Lord bless thee, Othmân! If I had not chosen Omar, then I had not passed thee over; and I know not whether Omar will accept the office. As for myself, I could wish that I had never borne the burden of the Caliphate, but had been of those who departed this life in times that are past.’

This would imply that Abu Bekr had thought of Othmân as his successor in default of Omar. The conversation, however, is professedly secret and confidential. It rests solely on the authority of Othmân himself, and we need not give too much heed to it.

[185] It is not stated on what day this occurred. It may have been only a day or two before his death; for his interview with Mothanna shows that even on the last day of his life, he was able to gather up his strength.

The ordinance ran in these words: ‘In the name of the Lord most Merciful! This is the covenant of Abu Bekr, son of Abu Cohâfa, with the Moslems:’ (here he swooned away)--‘I have appointed, as my Successor over you, Omar, son of Khattâb. I have not in anywise spared myself in this matter; but have striven to the utmost to do the best for you.’ Ibn Khaldûn adds: ‘I know that he will do judgment and justice amongst you; but if he commit tyranny or injustice, verily the future is hidden from mine eyes.’

Asma had been the wife of Jáfar; and again, after Abu Bekr’s death, became one of Aly’s numerous wives. The Arab women still tattoo their breasts and arms with elaborate and beautiful designs.

The reader will remark the freedom with which women of the highest rank appeared in public even at this period, their habits partaking still of the freedom of the desert. But this was not long to last.

[186] Sura, v. 18. Some make this to have been said in reply to Ayesha, who had been repeating the few lines just given as recited by Abu Bekr himself.

[187] The prayer is somewhat similar to the last words of Mahomet. See _Life of Mahomet_, p. 509.

[188] The 21st Jumâd II. He reigned two years, three months, and ten days. He died on the same day of the week (Monday) as Mahomet, and at the same age, 63 lunar years.

[189] Abu Bekr told Asma that he wished her alone to wash his body and lay it out. On her replying that her strength was not equal to the task, he said that she might ask Abd al Rahmân to help her. He desired to be buried in the same two garments he had on, with a new piece over them; and when those around objected, he made use of the words in the text.

[190] It was opposite the house of Othmân, which adjoined the apartments of Ayesha and the other widows of Mahomet. The cortège would thus pass across the open court of the mosque. The grave was dug after the same fashion as Mahomet’s (_Life_, p. 517). Talha, and Abd al Rahmân the Caliph’s son, were the two who descended to adjust the body in the grave.

A curious incident illustrates the rude manners of the time. When her father died, Ayesha, with her sister Omm Farwa (Asháth’s wife), and a party of female friends, began to wail. Omar forbade it, as a work of Satan, but they persisted. Omar, on this, ordered Hishâm to bring forth Omm Farwa. Ayesha screamed and said, ‘Who is Omar? I forbid thee my house.’ But Omm Farwa was brought forth and beaten with a whip, on which the mourning women dispersed. The story is probably exaggerated; but that it should have been preserved at all is a proof of the rough notions prevalent as to the treatment of ladies of rank and birth at this early period.

[191] Some say 8,000 dirhems; others, that he had no fixed allowance, but took only what sufficed for the maintenance of his family. In support of the latter statement, a tradition is given that his wife, having a longing for some sweetmeats, saved up a little money for the purpose. Abu Bekr finding it out, took the whole sum and put it back into the treasury, as more than absolutely needed for the maintenance of his household. Many of these traditions are evidently exaggerated with the view of enhancing the hardness and thrift of Abu Bekr’s life, and his conscientious use of the public money, in contrast with the luxury and extravagance of later Caliphs. Thus we are told that at his death he desired that whatever property was found in his house should be sent to Omar, in repayment of what he had received; there was only a camel, a cutler-slave, and a carpet worth five dirhems. They were sent to Omar with the deceased Caliph’s message, whereat Omar wept, but carried out the request to the letter. All these stories, the feeding and milking of the goats, engaging in merchandise, &c., must be received dubiously.

[192] Mines were worked in the lands of the Beni Suleim.

[193] In the general distribution, each soul received ten dirhems the first year, and twenty the second, besides what was spent in the public service. Warm clothing was purchased from the Bedouin tribes, and distributed among the destitute in the winter. In all, they estimate that 200,000 dirhems (say 10,000_l._) were received in Abu Bekr’s reign--but a poor forecast of what was to come! A woman was employed to weigh the treasure as it came in.

[194] The three things are variously related: _e.g._ that he did not himself go forth with the expeditions against the apostate tribes; others, of weak authority, relate chiefly to the succession to the Caliphate, and some are clearly of an Alyite stamp.

[195] It does not, however, by any means follow that he had none. Slave-girls, as part of the harem, are rarely mentioned, unless one happened to bear issue to her master, when she became free, as his _Omm walad_.

[196] It seems he had a presentiment it would be a girl, for he said to Ayesha: ‘Thy brothers and _sisters_ must all share equally.’ ‘What sisters?’ she asked in surprise; ‘there is only Asma.’ ‘The one,’ he answered, ‘that Habîba bint Khârija is big with.’ One of his sons, Abdallah, was only three years old at his death; and his mother, Coteila, was probably alive when he died. When Omm Rumân, Ayesha’s mother, died, is nowhere stated.

[197] The old blind man, hearing a commotion at Mecca, asked what it might be, and being told that his son had died--‘Alas!’ he cried, ‘glory hath departed from us; and who succeedeth him?’ They answered, Omar. ‘It is well,’ he replied; ‘for he was his worthy fellow.’ As the Caliph’s father, he inherited a sixth part of his son’s estate.

[198] [Arabic]

[199] This is almost the only mention made of Aly during Abu Bekr’s Caliphate, excepting when he gives advice in the Caliph’s Council, marries a new wife, or purchases some attractive bond-maid. In such a self-indulgent life, he was becoming portly and inactive.

[200] _I.e._ of the Muhâjerîn or Ansâr; that is, the Coreish, on the one hand, and the natives of Medîna on the other.

[201] The following is an outline of the narrative, as given by the Arab historians. On Shahrîrân’s death, after the battle of Babylon (summer of A.D. 634), Dokht Zenân, daughter of Chosroes (Perwîz), for a brief period, and then Sapor, son of Shahrîrân, occupied the throne. The latter gave the hand of Azarmîdokht, another daughter of Chosroes, to his favourite minister Furrukhzâd. But she resented the alliance; and, at her call, the hero Siâwaksh slew the intended husband on the marriage night, besieged the palace, and, putting Sapor to death, proclaimed Azarmîdokht queen. Such was the state of things when Mothanna, in August, went to Medîna. During his absence, Burân, another daughter of Chosroes, having great influence with the nobles, summoned the warrior Rustem from Khorasan to avenge the death of his father, Furrukhzâd, which he did most effectually--defeating the royal troops, killing Siâwaksh, and putting out Azarmîdokht’s eyes; and then he set Burân upon the throne. Her regency (such was the ordinance) should continue ten years, in default of any prince being discovered of the royal blood; after which, the male line being proved extinct, the dynasty would be confirmed in the female line. Burân then appointed Rustem her minister, with supreme powers, and the nobles rallied round him. This was just before Abu Obeid’s appearance on the stage.

The chronology, however, is utterly confused and uncertain. This Burân is said to have opposed Shîra (Siroes) for a year; and, when he finally succumbed to have retained her authority as arbiter (_àdil_) in the State. She is also said to have sent gifts to Mahomet, &c. But so much we may assume as certain that between Perwîz (A.D. 628) and Yezdegird there was an interval of four and a half years. See Weil’s _Chalifen_, vol. i. p. 64, and Tabari, vol. ii. p. 178.

[202] The Persian campaign begins now to assume greater consistency and detail; but, partly from alteration of the river beds, and partly from the sites of towns, &c., being no longer known, it is not always easy to follow the course of the campaign. Namârick, the scene of Abu Obeid’s first victory, was on the Bâdacla, or western branch of the Euphrates. Jabân was there taken prisoner; but the captors, not recognising his rank, ransomed him in exchange for two skilled artisans. Mothanna, discovering his quality, would have put him to death for the deception, but Abu Obeid stood by the ransom. ‘The faithful are one body,’ he said, ‘and quarter given by any one of them must be sustained by all; it would be perfidy to put him to death.’ He was therefore let go; but being again laid hold of after the battle of the Bridge, was then executed. The second engagement took place at the royal date-preserve of Sakatia, near Kaskar (subsequently the site of Wâsit). Abu Obeid, hearing that Jalenûs was on his way with supports, hurried on and gave battle to Narsa before he came up. Expeditions were then sent to Barôsama and the country around.

[203] Called also Dzú Hâjib.

[204] It was twelve cubits long and eight broad.

[205] The common tradition is that Ibn Salûba, Chief of Hîra (as a kind of neutral), constructed the bridge for both sides. The account given by Belâdzori is more probable, that it was a standing bridge belonging to Hîra, as it would be chiefly for its use. The Moslems crossed at Marwaha, near Babylon. The action must therefore have been fought on the banks of the main river, and not on the western channel.

[206] Dates now begin to be given, but the chronology is still very doubtful. One authority places the battle forty days after that of Wacûsa on the Yermûk--that is to say, seven or eight weeks after Abu Bekr’s death. But in the interval between that event and the present battle, there took place Abu Obeid’s protracted march, the battle of Namârick and the expeditions following it, the gathering of Jabân’s army and its march, all which must have occupied at the least two months, and probably a good deal more.

[207] A marvellous vision was seen by the wife of Abu Obeid. A man descended out of heaven, having a pitcher in his hand, out of which he gave drink first to her husband, and then, one after another, to several warriors of his tribe. She told Abu Obeid, who answered that he wished it might be a token of impending martyrdom to him and them. He then appointed each of the warriors, in turn, whom she had named, to succeed him if he fell; and so it turned out. Abu Obeid cut at the _lip_ of the elephant, being told (erroneously) that it was the part where a mortal blow could most easily be struck.

[208] The same clan as Abu Obeid’s.

[209] The depth is as much as fifteen feet, and it runs at the rate of one and a half to three knots an hour. (Rich’s _Travels_.) The banks, however, are not so high, nor is the current so rapid, as of the Tigris.

[210] The remarkable fact of a _Christian_ chief, Abu Zobeid, of the Beni Tay, being, not only on the Moslem side, but taking so prominent and brave a part in the defence of the broken force, is noticed both by Ibn Athîr and Belâdzori. We shall see how largely Mothanna was indebted to Christian help in the next decisive battle.

[211] Firuzân was the name of the insurgent. But, with the exception that the nobles sacrificed the empire to intrigue and jealousies, we are much in the dark as to the inner history of Persia at this time. There were two parties, we are told, the Persians proper, or the national faction, which supported Firuzân; and the other nationalities, Rustem. But they soon coalesced.

[212] See above, pp. 128, 129.

[213] Sura, VIII. v. 14.

[214] The names of the tribes now flocking to the war are, many of them familiar to the reader of the Prophet’s life; as the Beni Hantzala, Khátham, Abd al Cays, Dhabha. The Beni Azd were 700 strong, under Arfaja.

These levies are represented as the response to the present summons of Omar, now made afresh after the battle of the Bridge; but erroneously so, for they reached Mothanna at once, and fought under his banner within a month of that disaster. It took some time for the fresh levies to gather, as we shall see.

[215] The history of this contingent is interesting. Mahomet had promised Jarîr that he should have a commission to gather the scattered members of the Beni Bajîla into a fighting column. Jarîr followed Khâlid into Irâc, and then returned to Medîna, where he found Abu Bekr sick, or too much occupied to attend to his claim. But after his death, Omar, in fulfilment of the Prophet’s promise, gave him letters to the various governors to search out everywhere those who, before Islam, belonged to the Bajîla tribe, and still desired to be associated with it. A great rendezvous of these was accordingly made, at a spot between the Hejâz and Irâc, whither, yielding to the persuasion of Omar, they now bent their steps. There was rivalry between Jarîr and Arfaja as to the command of this tribe; but the levy had some grudge against Arfaja, who therefore left them and took the command of his own tribe, the Beni Azd. Arfaja is also said, by another tradition, to have led the Beni Bajîla _into Syria_; but that (if true) must have been a different body of men, and at a different time.

[216] The tradition runs: ‘Among those who joined Mothanna was Anis ibn Hilâl, with an immense following of the Beni Namr (Christians); for they said, _We shall surely fight on the side of our own people_.’

[217] Rustem and the insurgent Firuzân had come to a compromise, and agreed, we are told, to a division of power.

[218] Mehrân is called Hamadâny, because he was a native of that province. He is said, as on the former occasion, to have given Mothanna the option of crossing by the bridge.

The channel was the Bâdacla, which is here described as a spill canal to pass off the surplus waters of the Euphrates when in flood, into the _Jowf_ or sea of Najaf--the same as the western branch of the river taken off (as already described) by the cut at Museyib, above Babylon. Boweib was not far from Hîra, the inhabitants of which must have been in much excitement during this and other great battles in the vicinity, on which their alternating fate depended.

[219] ‘Mothanna was an example,’ we are told, ‘in word and deed. The people trusted and obeyed him both in what they liked and what they disliked’--a noble, single-minded commander, whose repeated supersession had no effect upon his loyalty and zeal.

[220] ‘I brought the army,’ Mothanna said, ‘to an evil pass by getting before the enemy and closing the bridge upon him; but the Lord graciously warded off the danger. Beware, therefore, of following my example, for verily it was a grievous lapse. It becometh us not to bar the escape of those who have nothing to fall back upon.’ It will be observed that the compunction was not at all for any unnecessary bloodshed among the helpless enemy (an idea altogether foreign to the thoughts of a Moslem crusader), but of gratuitous loss and risk to the Moslems. It may have added to Mothanna’s grief that in repelling this last charge he lost his brother. The slain are put at 100,000. ‘Years after, even in the time of the civil wars, you could not walk across the plain without stumbling on the bones strewed all around.’

[221] The horse and spoil of Mehrân were awarded to the column in which this youth was fighting. Jarîr and another had a quarrel over them. Had the youth been a Mussulman, no doubt he would have obtained the whole as a prize.

[222] His own tribe, the Beni Bekr ibn Wâil.

[223] Amr went on with supplies to Hîra, where the rest of the families were in hiding. The female defenders of their camp remind one of Layard’s description of a similar occasion on which the women of an Arab encampment rushed out to repel an attack, armed with tent-poles and pitchforks. (_Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 168.)

[224] It would unnecessarily weary the reader to detail these raids at any length. Some of them were against other and hostile branches of the very Christian tribes that had fought at the Bridge and at Boweib on the Moslem side; some were to obtain supplies for the army, which was reduced at one time to great extremities for food; but most were for the double purpose of striking terror into the people, and at the same time gaining plunder. On one occasion the Beni Bekr ransomed a great company of prisoners from the Taghlib tribe, by relinquishing their own share of the booty. One of these minor actions is called ‘Anbâr _the second_’; and another ‘Allîs _the second_.’

A somewhat remarkable incident shows that Omar had spies in all quarters, and also that he dreaded the outbreak of ancestral quarrels between the different Arab tribes. The garrison of Siffîn, in Mesopotamia, composed of the Beni Namr and Taghlib, were attacked by the Beni Bekr and driven out of their stronghold, over the banks into the river. In their terror they cried out, _We are drowning!_ and the Beni Bekr answered, _Yea, drowning for burning!_ in allusion to an occasion in former days in which the Beni Taghlib had burned alive some of the Beni Bekr tribe. Omar, learning the circumstance from his spies, demanded what this threat--founded on a pre-Islamite feud, and therefore alien from the spirit of Islam--should mean. He was told that the threat was used, not in a spirit of retaliation, but of punishment and example, and in the interests of the faith; and the explanation was accepted.

[225] There is a tradition that the reason given by Omar why he set aside both Khâlid and Mothanna was ‘his fear lest their influence should become too great, and lead the people to put their trust in them instead of in the Lord of Hosts.’ There may, no doubt, have been some jealousy of Khâlid’s influence; but there could hardly have been any of Mothanna’s. Again, Omar is said to have changed his mind both in respect of Mothanna, on learning his gallant stand at the Bridge, and in respect of Khâlid, on account of his bravery at Kinnisrin--adding that, in both, Abu Bekr had proved a better judge of character than he. Whatever foundation there may be for the tradition so far as Khâlid is concerned, it can hardly apply to Mothanna, for it was not till after the battle of the Bridge that Omar finally superseded him, by appointing Sâd to the supreme command.

[226] The ancient Gaulonitis.

[227] The landscape between the Haurân and the Jordan is well described by Laurence Oliphant, _Land of Gilead_, p. 62. See also Chesney’s _Euphrates Expedition_ (London, 1850), vol. i. pp. 512–515, where he speaks of the nightingale in these parts.

[228] The effect of Omar’s order depends on the nature of Abu Bekr’s commission. It is usually held that the commanders of the several columns were at the first independent, and that Khâlid held a similar position in respect of the Irâc contingent, till on the eve of the great engagement, he persuaded the rest to come temporarily under his supreme command--a fact, of course, unknown to Omar when issuing his order of deposition. If so, Abu Obeida would, by Omar’s order, have simply superseded Khâlid in taking command of the Irâc troops in addition to his own. On the other hand, it is held by some that the commission given by Abu Bekr to Khâlid was that of generalissimo; and that to this supreme command Abu Obeida succeeded, in addition to that of his own proper column and of Khâlid’s. This is the more probable, since Abu Obeida was certainly recognised thereafter as commander-in-chief in Syria. It is, however, inconsistent with the story of separate commands; but, see previous note, p. 111.

Tradition is still very shifty and uncertain. According to Belâdzori, it is even held that the order of supersession was not received till the siege of Damascus; but this seems improbable.

[229] It is said by some that Abu Obeida, though he received the order on the Yermûk, yet held it back till after the siege of Damascus. But this is out of the question. Had Abu Obeida not been supreme on that occasion, Damascus would not have been allowed to capitulate. It was with difficulty that Khâlid, even in his subordinate position, was prevented from treating the city as taken by storm, which he certainly would have done had he been supreme; and in that case all the property, as well as the inhabitants and buildings, would have been at the mercy of the captors.

[230] Gen. xv. 2. ‘The steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus.’

[231] The window from which St. Paul was let down, no doubt stood in one of these military structures, or casemates, upon the wall. Tradition still points out the window, ‘although the wall itself has been several times rebuilt.’ (Robinson’s _Palestine_, p. 466. Damascus is described, pp. 443 _et seq._) There is an admirable account of the city given by H. von Kremer, in his vol. i. ch. iv., _Damascus und der Hof der Omejjaden_.

The Eastern gateway here mentioned is built of great masses of reddish sandstone, well polished. The arch is rounded, and there are two portals at the sides for foot-passengers. The main archway, intended for camels, &c., is now closed. The ‘Straight street,’ only fifteen feet wide, still runs right across the city, from this gate to the Jâbia gate, on the west. There are several other similar gateways in the great wall.

[232] For the Eastern gate invested by Khâlid, see Von Kramer, p. 210. Amru sat before the Bâb Tûma, to the N.E.; Shorahbil before the Bâb Farâdîs, to the north; and Yezîd patrolled from ‘the Lesser Gate to the gate Al Heisan.’

[233] The length of the siege is variously given at seventy days by Tabari, and six months by Wâckidy. The latter, indeed, places the capitulation in autumn, a month or two before the battle of Câdesîya, which was fought in November; but this leaves too little time for intervening events. The order of events was as follows. The city was first invested probably early in the spring; it capitulated in the summer; then followed the battle of Fihl; after which Khâlid’s contingent was sent back to Irâc, and appeared on the field of Câdesîya just as the contest was proceeding.

[234] He is called by some Nastûs, by others Bahân. The latter is the name of the general who inflicted on Khâlid ibn Saîd his severe defeat.