¹ On Ash‘ath's Jewish origin see Lecker, M., “Judaism among Kinda and the ridda of Kinda” (forthcoming, JAOS).Google Scholar The famous philosopher al-Kindī was his descendant; see al-Qifṭī, Ibn, Ta'rikh al-ḥukamā’, pp. 366Google Scholar; Ibn al-Nadīm, , Fihrist (Cairo, A.H. 1347), P. 357.Google Scholar

² Ed. Ḥasan, Nājī (Beirut, 1408/1988), pp. 136f.Google Scholar The reader of this book should be warned, though, that the edition contains hundreds of errors. (I have also consulted Ḥazm, Ibn, Ansāb, pp. 425f)Google Scholar Much poorer than the Nasab Ma‘add is the recent “edition” of a genealogical book by Ahmad b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Ash‘arī al-Qurṭubī entitled al-Ta‘rif fī l-ansāh wa-l-tanwīh li-dhawī l-aḥsāb, prepared by Dr Sa'd ‘Abd al-Maqṣūd Ẓalām, ‘amīd kulliyyati l-lughati l-‘arabiyya in al-Azhar (Cairo, 1407/1986). The number of errors renders this edition unusable, which is lamentable because the book includes evidence not found elsewhere.

³ ṭabarī, , iii, pp. 334f. [i, pp. 2004f].Google Scholar

⁴ Hamdānī, , Iklīl viii, pp. 157f.Google Scholar (the title of this section is ḥuṣūn Ḥaḍramawt wa-maḥāfiduhā; cf. Beeston, et al. ., Sabaic Dictionary, s.v. mḥfdGoogle Scholar (“tower”); Biella, , Dictionary of Old South Arabic, s.v. (“tower, fortification”). Another locality linked with this Abū l-Khayr is YatribGoogle Scholar; Hamdānī, Iklīl, ii p. 46Google Scholar (Yatrib bi-l-tā’ madīna bi-Ḥaḍramawt nazalathā Kinda kāna bihā Abū l-Khayr b. ‘Amr al-Kindī wa-Tarīm (sic); cf. Yāqūt, s.v. Yatrib. See also below, the end of n. 8.

⁵ EI ², s.v. Kinda (Shahīd, I.), p. 118.Google Scholar

⁶ Olinder, , “Āl al-Ğaun of the family of Ākil al-Murār”, pp. 228f.Google Scholar

⁷ A place called Ghamr Dhī Kinda in Najd is specifically recorded: adkhala Kindata Ḥaḍramawta mina l-Ghamr (the Ghamr is two days’ journey from Mecca on the Baṣra pilgrim road; cf. Lecker, M., The Banū Sulaym, pp. 40, 225n).Google Scholar See Nasab Ma‘add, p. 170 (‘Amr/Aqḥal)Google Scholar; Ḥbib, Ibn, Muḥabbar, p. 370Google Scholar (after the downfall of their kingdom, he told them to return to their fellow tribesmen, viz. those who remained in Ḥaḍramawt: …fa-'lhaqū bi-qawmikum, fa-rahalū fa-laḥiqū bi-Ḥaḍramawt fa-hum bihā ilā l-yawm). This major move, which included over thirty thousand Kindites returning from Ghamr Dhī Kinda, as well as from Hajar and al-Mushaqqar, took place after the killing of Ibn al-Jawn, a descendant of Ḥujr Ākil al-Murār, in the battle of Shi'b Jabala; see e.g. Hamdānī, , Ṣifa, pp. 168Google Scholar [ed. Muller, D. H., p. 85:6]CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 175 [88: 1].

⁸ Hamdānī, , Iklīl, viii, pp. 157f.Google Scholar (wa-Tarim mawḍi‘u l-mulūk min Banī ‘Amr b. Mu‘āwiya minhum Abū l-Khayr b. ‘Amr l-wāfīd ‘alā kisrā li-yastamidda minhu ‘alā banī l-Ḥārith b. ‘Amr b. Mu‘āwiya; Bakri, , Mu‘jam ma ’sta‘jama, ed. l-Saqqā, Muṣṭafā (Cairo, 1364/1945–1371/1951)Google Scholar, s.v. Tarīm, (… yastamidduhu ‘alā qawmihi); Nasab Ma’add, i, p. 170Google Scholar (… yastajīshuhu ‘alā Banī Mu‘āwiya; read: … ‘alā Banī al-Ḥarith b. ‘Amr. b. Mu‘āwiya); cf. Müller, D. H., Die Burgen und Schlösser Südarabiens (Wien, 1879), p. 90Google Scholar (… yastamiddu minhu ‘ā ’bni l-Ḥārith b. Mu‘awiya). See a German translation op. cit., p. 44; see an English translation in Faris, N. A., The Antiquities of South Arabia (Princeton, 1938), p. 58.Google Scholar Incidentally, Fāris refers to Ṭabarī, , iii, pp. 334–5Google Scholar [i, pp. 2004–6] “for the struggle between the banū-‘Amr and the banū-al-Ḥarith”. But the text in Ṭabarī, which relates to the ridda, is irrelevant here.

Caskel calls this envoy Abū l-Ğabr (ii, s.v.; i, no. 238: Abū l-Ğabr b. ‘Amr b. Yazīd b. Shuraḥbil b. al-Ḥārith b. ’Amr al-Maqṣūr b. Ḥugr Ākil al-Murār). Caskel plausibly assumes that the Khusro in question was Khusro I (Anūshirwān, , 531–79). He also assumes that the Kindite envoy asked for help against the Banū Mu‘āwiya (al-Jawn), but the latter assumption is wrong. As we have just seen, according to the Iklīl, Abū l-Khayr's enemies were the Banū al-Ḥārith (al-Wallāda) b. ‘Amr b. Mu‘āwiya.Google Scholar

While the text just quoted implies that Abū l-Khayr lived in Tarim, elsewhere he is specifically said to have lived in Yatrib; Hamdānī, , Ṣifa, p. 173Google Scholar [ed. Muller, , i, p. 87: 13]: wa-Yatrib madīna bi-Ḥaḍramawt nazalathā Kinda wa-kāna bihā Abū l-Khayr b. ‘Amr.Google Scholar

⁹ Al-qarid means “in their language”: “the generous”. His father was nick-named al-Wallāda because he had many children (li-kathrati wuldihi); Sa‘d, Ibn, v, p. 13.Google Scholar

¹⁰ But according to Hamdānī, , Iklīl, viii, p. 211Google Scholar, Abḍu‘a was the sister of Jamd, Mishraḥ and Miḥwas(!). Ḥamza, Ta'rikh, p. 101Google Scholar, records “the four kings and their sister Abḍu‘a”, placing them at the time of Hurmuz b. Shāpūr (Hurmuz, I, 272–3 !). A dubious report specifies that there were seven kingsGoogle Scholar: the above four, in addition to Ash‘ath, Wadī‘a and Walī‘a; Ibn Ḥubaysh, , i, p. 134.Google Scholar Caskel, , ii, s.v. Mišraḥ b. Ma‘dikarib vocalizesGoogle Scholar: Ğamad, (!) and Ibn Durayd, , Ishtiqāq, 367Google Scholar, does the same; but see al-Sam‘ānī, , al-Ansāb, ed. ’Abdallah, ‘al-Bārūdī, Umar (Beirut, 1408/1988)Google Scholar, s.v. al-Jamdī ī. On Mishraḥ's daughter Zur‘a see Lecker, “Judaism among Kinda”, n. 63.

¹¹ ‘Alawī, , Ta'rīkh Ḥaḍramawt, i, p. 151.Google Scholar Cf. Ibn Ḥubaysh, , i, p. 133Google Scholar (Ḥaritha b. Surāqa b. Ma‘dīkarib); ṭabarī, , iii, p. 332Google Scholar [ i, p. 2002] (Abū al-Sumayṭ Ḥāritha b. Surāqa b. Ma'dīkarib). In ‘Askarī, , Awā‘il, p. 309Google Scholar, this man is called Masrūq b. Ma‘dīkarib (which may represent another, independent, version concerning his identity). Another nephew of the kings called Masrūq b. al-Khālī (cf. Caskel, , i, no. 239 and iiGoogle Scholar, s.v. al-Ḫalī b. Ma‘dīkarib) was killed “on the day of Nujayr ”; Nasab Ma‘add, i, p. 177.Google Scholar Note that Ibn al-Kalbī mentions a poet called Abū Hunayy Masrūq b. Ma‘dikarib among the descendants of ‘Abdallāh/al-Shayṭān b. al-Ḥarith al-Wallāda b. ‘Amr, ascribing to him a typically defiant verse in connection with the ridda; Nasab Ma‘add, p. 173. But being a descendant of ‘Abdallāh/al-Shayṭān, he could not have been of the Bamū Walī‘a (see chart).Google Scholar

¹² Se‘d, Ibn, v, p. 13.Google Scholar We have evidence of palm-trees belonging to the Banū Walī‘a: it is reported that the Kindite Yazīd b. Farwa b. Zurara b. al-Arqam (see the Banū al-Arqam in the chart) granted protection to Khālid b. al-Walīd when he cut the palm-trees of the Walī‘a, Banū (ajara Khālīd b. al-Walīd yawma qaṭa‘a nakhla Banī Walī‘a); Nasab Ma‘add, i, 149.Google Scholar Cf. ṭabarī, perhaps, p. 336Google Scholar [i, p. 2007) (Khālid fulān [= so-and-so) al-Makhzūmī takes part in a raid to the Sāhil of Ḥaḍramawt ordered by ‘Ikrima b. Abī Jahl [of the Makhzūm]); al-Khazrajī, Abū l-Ḥasan, al-Kifāya wa-l-i‘lām fīrman waliya l-Yaman wa-sakanahā min mulūk al-islāmGoogle Scholar, partial edition by Daghfūs, Rāḍī, Les cahiers de Tunisie, xxvii (1979), (entitled: al-Yaman fī ‘andi l-wulāt), p. 37Google Scholar (Khālid b. al-Walīd is listed among the governors sent by the Prophet to the Yemen), pp. 38, 44f. The above-mentioned Wādīs are presumably identical with the maḥājir (sing. maḥjar) which are associated elsewhere with the tribal leaders of Kinda. Thus Wādī al-Zurqān ([pseudo-]Wāqidī, , Ridda, p. 110Google Scholar; the text is garbled) is no doubt identical with Maḥjar al-Zurqān (ṭabarī, , p. 335 [i, p. 2006]).Google Scholar Cf. Yāqūt, s.v. Zurqān: maḥjar al-Zurqān, wa-l-maḥjar ka-l-nāhiya li-l-qawm. Maḥjar/maḥjir is “The tract surrounding a town or village”; the maḥājir of the kings (aqyāl) of the Yemen were “places of pasturage, whereof each of them had one, in which no other person pastured his beasts”; Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, s.v. However, as owners of maḥājir we find not only the kings of Wan but also two leaders of the Ḥārith b. Mu‘āwiya subdivision: thumma inna Banī ‘Amr b. Mu‘awiya… kharajū ilā l-maḥājir, ilā aḥmā’ ḥamawhā (“ …to places of pasturage declared as ḥimās or ‘ places of pasture prohibited to the people other than their owner’ ”). This is followed by the names of the four kings and their sister al-‘Amarrada, each having a maḥjar of his/her own, who were the leaders of the Banū ‘Amr wa-kanat Band ’Amr b. Mu‘āwiya ‘alā hā’ulā’i l-ru'asā’. The Hārith b. Mu‘awiya had their own maḥājir: wa-nazalat Banū l-Ḥrith b. Mu‘awiya maḥājirahā; two leaders of the Ḥārith are specifically recorded: fa-nazala l-Ash‘ath b. Qays maḥjaran wa-l-Simṭ b. al-Aswad Maḥjaran; ṭabarī, , iii, p. 334Google Scholar [i, p. 2004]. Cf. Beeston, et al. , Sabaic Dictionary, s.v. mḥgr (“land reserved for s.o.'s exclusive use”)Google Scholar; Biella, , Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect, s.v. (“enclosed [pasture] land”).Google Scholar

¹³ See on him Sezgin, F., Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, i (Leiden, 1967), p. 284Google Scholar; Horovitz, J., “The earliest biographies of the Prophet and their authors”, Islamic Culture, ii (1928), pp. 22f. As to ‘Abdallāh b. Kathīr, his son Muḥammad was the governor of Medina during the caliphate of al-Mahdī; see below, n. 101.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ḥubaysh, Ibn, p. 131 (aṭ‘ama rasūlu ’llāhi [ṣ] Banī Walīa min Kinda ṭu‘;ma min thimār Ḥaḍramawt wa-ja‘ala ‘alā ahl Ḥaḍramawt naqlahā ilayhim).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Possibly taken from Madā'inī's Kitāb al-ridda, recorded in al-Nadīm, Ibn, Fihrist (Cairo, A.H. 1347), p. 149.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Askarī, , Awā'il p. 309Google Scholar (under the title awwal man mashati l-rijāma‘ahu wa-huwa rākib al-Ash‘ath b. Qays). All this, as we are told later in the same report, took place during the lifetime of Muḥammad. See also Balādhurī, , Futūḥ, p. 141Google Scholar (irtadda Banū Walī‘a qabla wafāti l-nabī [s]).

¹⁷ Elsewhere the “safety net” provided for the conduct of the Islamic state and its governor in Ḥaḍramawt is thicker. Cf. Sayf b. ‘Umar's report in ṭabarī, , p. 331 [i, p. 2000].Google Scholar Also Ibn Abī, p. 97Google Scholar (Ziyād b. Labīd gave the Banū Walī‘ the ṭu‘ma [fa-dafa‘ahā Ziyād ilayhim], but they demanded that Ziyād transport it to their land on his camels because they had no camels of their own).

¹⁸ See also Lecker, , “Judaism among Kinda”, Appendix, n. 97.Google Scholar

¹⁹ On Imru'u l-Qays see al-Āmidī, al-Mu'talif wa-l-mukhtalif, ed. ‘Farrāj, Abd al-Sattār Aḥmad (Cairo, 1381/1861), p. 5Google Scholar (read wa-kāna lahu ghanā’ fīl-ridda instead of… ‘anā’ …). Āmidī, (p. 6) refers to akhbār on Imru'u l-Qays in the chapter about Kinda's poets in his book, now lost, Kitāb al-shu‘ard’ al-mashhūrīnaGoogle Scholar; cf. Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, Supplementband, I. (Leiden, 1937), p. 172.Google Scholar Rajā’ b. Ḥaywa, whom ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz owed his nomination as caliph, was also said to have been a descendant of this Imru'u l-Qays. It is of course no accident that Rajā’ transmitted a Ḥadīth dealing with Imru’u l-Qays b. ‘Ābis; Ibn Hajar, , I’ was a ā or client of KindaGoogle Scholar; see Bosworth, C. E., “Rajā’ ibn Ḥaywa al-Kindī and the Umayyad caliphs”, Islamic Quarterly, XVI (1972), p. 37Google Scholar; reprinted in Bosworth, C. E., Medieval Arabic Culture and Administration (London, 1982), iiiGoogle Scholar; Khayyāṭ, Khalīfa b., Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt, ed. al-‘Umarī, Akram Ḍiyā’ (Riyāḍ, 1402/1982; reprint of the 1387/1967 edition), p. 310.Google Scholar The rarity of the statement that Rajā’ was a mawlā paradoxically enhances its reliability (one assumes that it was effectively suppressed else where). In addition, in matters of descent one is inclined to opt for the less favourable possibility. However, in this specific case there is some difficulty: not only do we have a full pedigree of Rajā’, showing him to be a full-fledged member of Kinda, but it is also claimed that his grandfather (whose name is disputed) was a Companion of the Prophet; see e.g. al-Dhahabī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, Siyar a‘lam al-nubald’, iv, ed. al-Arnāwūṭ, Shu‘ ayb and al-Ṣāghirjī, Ma'mūn (Beirut, 1401/1981), p. 557Google Scholar; ‘Asākir, Ibn, TMD, Mukht., viii, p. 312Google Scholar; al Mizzī, Abū l-Hajjāj Yūsuf, Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmā‘ al-rijāl, ed. Ma‘riff, Bashshār ‘Awwād (Beirut, 1405/1985f), ix, 151.Google Scholar While the claim for Companion status may be dubious, it presumably indicates the Arab origin of this family. Beside the genealogical link, Imru'u I-Qays b. ‘Ābis and Rajā’ b. Ḥaywa (who lived two generations after him) had something else in common: both lived in Baysān (in the latter's case, only until his move to Filasṭin); see e.g. ’Asākir, Ibn, TMD, Mukht., v, p. 41; viii, p. 312.Google Scholar (“Maysān” in Bosworth, , loc. cit. is erroneousGoogle Scholar, as has already been pointed out by Gil, M., A History of Palestine, 634–1099, translated by Broido, Ethel [Cambridge, 1992], p. 121n.)Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibn āb, , pp. 428f.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibn Hajar, , Iṣāba, , i, p. 112Google Scholar, from Marzubānī (kāna mimman ḥaḍara ḥiṣra ḥiṣni l-Nujayr fa-lammā ukhrija murtaddūna li-yuqtahū wathaba ‘alā ‘ammihi li-yaqtulahu etc.).

²² Note that in the battle of Yarmūk this Imru'u l-Qays (and not a member of the two more prestigious families, Ḥujr Ākil al-Murār and al-Ḥarith al-Wallāda) was in command of a squadron of cavalry (kurdds); Ḥajar, Ibn, Iṣāba, i, p. 112, from Sayf b. ‘Umar's Futūḥ.Google Scholar

²³ A‘tham, Ibn, Futūḥ, p. 47 (wa-’ftaraqa l-qawmu fariqayni etc.).Google Scholar

²⁴ She was Māwiyya bint Qays b. Ma‘dikarib b. Abī. l-Kaysam b. al-Simṭ b. Imri’i l-Qays b. ‘Amr b. Mu'āwiya; Sa‘d, Ibn, p. 137; v, p. 168Google Scholar (read Māwiyya instead of Māriya). Note that the combination “al-Simṭ b. Imri'i l-Qays” appears also in Raja’ b. Ḥaywa's pedigree; Ḥazm, Ibn, Ansāb, p. 429; see chart.Google Scholar

²⁵ In some sources (Nasab Ma‘add, i, pp. 183, 184Google Scholar; Durayd, Ibn, Ishtiqāq, pp. 369, 371Google Scholar; Ibn Ḥazm, , Ansāb, p. 429) the clan's name is vocalized: Qutayra.Google Scholar See a most explicit statement on the role of the Qatīra in l-Baqā, Abu’, Manāqib Mazyadiyya, p. 77Google Scholar (Abū Bakr sent against the rebellious kings of Kinda al-Muhājir b. Abī Umayya and Ziyād b. Labīd, wa-ma‘ahumā Banū Qatīra, wa-hum qawm min Kinda aqāmū ‘alā l-islām fa-lam yartaddū). See also Balādhurī, , Futūḥ, p. 140Google Scholar (all the Kinda apostatized except the Sakūm); Ibn Ḥubaysh, i, p. 136 (wa-kānat Qatīra min Kinda qad thabatat ‘aiā l-islām lām yarj‘ minhā rajul wāḥid). On the Banū Qatīra's role see also klubaysh, Ibn, i, p. 136Google Scholar (one of them carried a fictitious letter from Abū Bakr, in fact written by Ziyād b. Labīd), p. 138 (eight men of the Qatīra escorted the captives from Nujayr to Medina), p. 141 (Qatira's share in the spoils of Nujayr). Also ṭabarī, , iii, p. 336Google Scholar [ i, p. 2007] (one of the besieged at Nujayr curses the besieging Banū Qatīra and their commander who was of the Banū al-Mughīra, viz. ‘Ikrima b. Abī Jahl who was of Makhzūm's Banū al Mughīra).

²⁶ ṭabari, iii, pp. 332Google Scholar [i, pp. 2002f.]; see also p. 333 [p. 2003] (wa-ghaḍibat al-Saktūn li-Ziyād wa-ghaḍibat lahu Ḥaḍramawt). Incidentally, this shows that while part of the Ḥaḍramawt tribe was on the rebels’ side (Balādhurī, , Futūḥ p. 143Google Scholar: wa-kānat Ḥaḍramawt atat Kinda munjidatan lahā), another part fought with the forces of the Islamic state.

²⁷ ṭabarī, , iii, p. 334 [i, p. 2005].Google Scholar

²⁸ A‘tham, Ibn, Futūḥ i, pp. 53, 54.Google Scholar

²⁹ For fighting in the Jāhiliyya between the Sakūn and Mu‘āwiya branches of Kinda (the former were led by a man of the Qatira) see Nasab Ma‘add, p. 184.

³⁰ Ṣalāḥ 'Abd al-Qādir al-Bakrī al-Yāfi'ī, , Ta'rtkh Hadramawt al-siyasi, I (Cairo, A.H. 1354), pp. 71f.Google Scholar

³¹ Ṭabarī, iii, p. 334 [i, p. 2004].Google Scholar

³² Cf. Khaldūn, Ibn, Kitāb al-'ibar (Beirut, 1956f.), ii, 576:Google Scholar Kinda… wa-madīnat mulkihim Dammūn. According to Hamdānī, Ṣifa, p. 170 [ed. Müller, D. H., p. 86:5], Dammūn was inhabited by the offspring of al-Ḥārith al-Malik b. 'Amr al-MaqṢūr b. Ḥujr Ākil al-Murār (wa-sākin Dammūn banū al-Ḥārith…). Prof. Griaznevitch wrote to me: “In the medieval Arabic historical and geographical literature this toponym became famous because it was mentioned in two verses of Imru'u l-Qays (d. in the first half of the VIth century). According to the context of the verses mentioned above, this was the settlement in Ḥaḍramawt in which the poet was living for some time. One of the informants of al-Hamdānī (Xth century) told him that Dammūn… is one of the two settlements (hajarāni) which are situated on the opposite sides (north and south)… of the huge rock situated in the middle of Wādī Daw'an. The settlement on the south side of the rock is said to be named Khawdūn or Khaydūn (probably this is the modern village Munayzara), the one on the north side is Dammūn. Here I had the possibility to investigate the poorly preserved ruins of ancient settlement which could be a castle of a medium size. The modern big settlement al-Hajarayn (‘two towns‘) is situated on the western slope of the rock…. Some 20–25 km from the modern al-Hajarayn in Wādī 'Amd the ruins of the city of 'Andal are situated. It is the place which is mentioned in one of the verses of Imru'u l-Qays as the aim of several raids in which the poet took part. This could confirm the location of Dammuūn — a place in western Ḥaḍramawt where the legendary poet was living…. The polemic about the true location of Dammūn is still going on mainly among the local historians/local patriots. It is connected with the fact that in Ḥaḍramawt there is another place with the same name, the northwestern suburb of Tarīm… Al-Hamdānī also indicates the existence of another Dammūn in central Ḥaḍramawt, in the region situated east of the modern Katn-Shibām up to Tarīm and its environs and called al-Sarīr in antiquity”.Google Scholar

³³ Pp. 74f. Yāfi‘ī’s account of the ridda is problematic, though: it is hard to distinguish between his own analysis and his evidence. Yāfi‘ī’ is obscure concerning the identity of the aforementioned Ḥāritha b. Surāqa (see above, p. 337): while his description of the events suggests (p. 76) that Ḥāritha b. Surāqa b. Ma'dīkarib b. al-Ḥārith (read: b. Walī'a) was not of the Walī'a, we later find (p. 77) that the Banū Walī'a joined him and fought under his command. Two of Yāfi‘ī’s comments are of special interest. First, a few place-names are incorporated into the description of the event: at the first stages of the ridda, Ziyād, rather than resorting to quiet diplomacy, remained silent ('Itazama l-sukūn wa-l-Ṣamt) and contented himself with the bay'a of the inhabitants of Shibām, al-Ghurfa, Saywūn, Tarīm, Maryama and Dammūn (p. 76). Second, there is an important comment about the lack of solidarity between Kinda's different divisions. Yāfi'ī (pp. 78f.) says that contrary to what one could expect, the kings of Kinda in western Ḥaḍramawt, in Daw'an, did not gather their forces in order to seek revenge from Ziyād and reinstate in power their brothers, the kings of the East, although Ash'ath had sent his envoys to them shortly before the war. They provided no assistance to Ash'ath, were involved in no hostilities against Ziyād and his men and did not obstruct al-Muhājir b. Abī Umayya's passage through their territory at al-Kasr (see map) on his way from the Yemen and back. Had they fought against him, Yāfi'ī adds, they would have annihilated his army. For the bay'a given to Ziyād by the people of Tarīm see also 'Alawī, , Ta'rīkh Ḥaḍramawt, i, p. 151,Google Scholar citing the following local historical work: Muhammad b. 'Abdallāh b. Sulaymān al-KhaṬīb, Bard al-na'īm fi manāqib khuṬabā’ Tarīm. Cf. on this book Serjeant, R. B., “Materials for South Arabian history: notes on new MSS from Ḥaḍramawt”, BSOAS, XIII (1949–1951), p. 305Google Scholar (under the title Burd [!] al-na‘īm fī nasab al-AnṢār khuṬabā’ Tarīm).

³⁴ On the siege see also Lecker, “Judaism among Kinda ”, Section II. Prof. Griaznevitch informed me (written communication) that according to the historical sources, al-Nujayr was east of Tarīm. He continued: “The field research organized by the Soviet-Yemeni Joint Expedition in 30.4 and 4.5 1983 demonstrated that previous locations were wrong and gave the possibility to locate the Nujayr castle at the place of the ancient site al-Hajar (‘town’). It is situated close to the left side of Wādī Masila on the high rocky hill 28 km east of Tarīm. It is really possible that this site is connected also with the castle 'Urr Kulayb ('r klybm) captured and destroyed by Sabaic troops at the beginning of the IVth century…. Field inspection revealed the traces of buildings. Among them were found traces of walls and gates built on the remnants of the ancient structures and of the materials of the ancient edifices. These facts are in conformity with the sources which report that the Kindites ‘restored and strengthened’ here the ruins of the old castle and constructed and fortified here the new castle called al-Nujayr”.

³⁵ [Pseudo-]Wāqidī, , Ridda, pp. 105f;Google Scholar A'tham, Ibn, FutūḤ, i, pp. 53f.Google Scholar (al-'Ātik is misprinted as al-'Āqil; Khamar is misprinted as Ḥimyar). Ḥamīdullāh, MuḤammad, Majmū'at al-wathā'iq al-siyāsiyya⁵ (Beirut, 1405/1985), P. 353.Google Scholar who quotes the MS of [pseudo-]Wāqidī's Ridda, has al-'Ātik (correctly), but J.M.R. instead of Khamar. The term jamarāt denotes their capability to defend themselves without aid from others (a jamra is “a body of men that congregate by themselves, because of their strength and their great valour”; Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, s.v.). [Pseudo-]Wāqidī's Ridda is in fact a fragment of Ibn A'tham's FutūḤ; Muranyi, M., “Ein neuer Bericht über die Wahl des ersten Kalifen Abū Bakr”, Arabica, XXV (1978), pp. 233ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ [Pseudo-]Wāqidī, , Ridda, p. 107;Google Scholar Ibn A'tham, , FutūḤ, i, p. 54f. (in Ibn A'tham, Ḥimyar is printed instead of Khamar; al-Jafshīsh is misprinted as al-Khanfashīsh and al-Khanfasīs, respectively).Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibn A'tham, , FutūḤ, i, pp. 55f.Google Scholar The passage on Zurqān (p. 57) is garbled and [pseudo-]Wāqidī, , Ridda, p. 110, should be consulted. Prof. Griaznevitch (written communication) suggests, on the basis of the ridda accounts, to locate MaḤjar al-Zurqān (cf. above, n. 12) between Tarīm and Nujayr. According to him it is now impossible to locate it more accurately.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibn A'tham, , FutūḤ, i, pp. 61f.Google Scholar (al-ṬumaḤī; is misprinted as al-ḤaṬḤamī!). Caskel, i, no. 234, vocalizes: at-Ṭumh, but the reading ṬumaḤ is confirmed by Ibn Durayd, , Ishtiqāq, p. 363.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibn A'tham, , FutūḤ, i, pp. 63f.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Through their mother the Banū Murra were linked to the Banū Wahb b. Rabī'a (on whom see below): Murra's mother (and his brother ShuraḤbīl's mother) was Hind bint Wahb b. Rabī'a.

⁴¹ Nasab Ma'add, i, pp. 143f.Google Scholar

⁴² Through their mother they were linked to the Dhuhl b. Mu'āwiya (on whom see below): al-Ḥārith b.'Adī's mother was granddaughter of Dhuhl; Nasab Ma'add, i, p. 139.Google Scholar

⁴³ Nasab Ma'add, i, pp. 162f., 165.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Nasab Ma'add, i, p. 165.Google Scholar Cf. Hinds, M., “The banners and battle cries of the Arabs at Ṣiffīn (657 AD)”, al-AbḤath, XXIV (1971), p. 23Google Scholar, no. 29 (at Ṣiffīn, Ash'ath carried the banner of the Kinda of Kūfa who were on ' Alī's side), p. 26, no. 43 (ShuraḤbīl b. al-SimṬ carried the banner of the Kinda of ḤimṢ who were on Mu'āwiya's side). Cf. Ash'ath's alleged role in the murder of 'Alī, EI ², s.v. Ibn Muldjm, 888b (L. Veccia Vaglieri).

⁴⁵ Nasab Ma'add, i, pp. 167f.Google Scholar Elsewhere two other members of this clan are recorded, namely 'Arfaja b. 'Abdallāh (Ibn A'tham, , FutūḤ, i, p. 64Google Scholar) and al-Ḥārith b. Mu'āwiya ([pseudo-]Wāqidī, , Ridda, pp. 98f.).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ At least one, but probably two, of the so-called “harlots of Ḥaḍramawt” were of the Banū al-'Ātik b. Mu'āwiya; see Lecker, “Judaism among Kinda”, Appendix, n. 86; Ibn Ḥabīb, , MuḤabbar, pp. 184f.Google Scholar; cf. Beeston, A. F. L., “The so-called harlots of Ḥaḍramawt”, Oriens, V (1952), pp. 16–22.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ [Pseudo-]Wāqidī, , Ridda, pp. 118f.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Nasab Ma'add, i, pp. 145f, 149 (Zurāra, Sa'īd and Yazīd, sons of Fazāra b. Zurāra b. al-Arqam, were also killed in the same battle).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Nasab Ma'add, i, pp. 149f.Google Scholar They were 'Uthmānīs; Ibn Ḥazm, , Ansāb, p. 426.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Nasab Ma'add, i, p. 149.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Nasab Ma'add, i, pp. 152f;Google Scholar Ibn Ḥajar, , IṢāba, vii, p. 332;Google Scholar Ibn Sa'd, , vi, p. 148 (the text is garbled).Google Scholar

⁵² Incidentally, one of the so-called “harlots of Ḥaḍramawt” was of the Banū Ḥujr; Lecker, “Judaism among Kinda”, Appendix, n. 85.

⁵³ Nasab Ma'add, i, p. 151 (vocalized: Khumr!);Google Scholar cf. p. 148 (Ḥumr!), p. 149 (AḤmaz!). For the correct vocalization, Khamar, see 'Alī b. Muhammad Ibn al-Athīr, , al-Lubāb fī tahdhīb al-ansāb (Beirut, n.d.), s.v., i, p. 460; also Caskel, i, no. 237.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ 'Askarī, , Awā'il, p. 309.Google Scholar Cf. l-Baqā', Abū, Manāqib Mazyadiyya, p. 75Google Scholar (a verse refers to Ash'ath as al-mu'aṢṢab bi-l-tāji ghulāman Ḥattā 'alāhu l-qatīru, “one whose head was encircled with a crown from young manhood to the appearance of hoariness”). It is noteworthy that when the Walī'a crowned him, he was no longer a ghulām, but a young man in his early thirties. I could not trace Yazīd b. Ma'dīkarib, the jadd of Ash'ath whose crown Ash'ath is said to have worn during the ridda; [pseudo-]Wāqidī, , Ridda, p. 115.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ṭabarī, , iii, p. 334Google Scholar [i, p. 2005]. See also Balādhurī, , FutūḤ, p. 140 (she was killed by mistake, the one who killed her took her for a man).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Balādhurī, , FutūḤ, p. 143.Google Scholar Elsewhere the four kings are said inaccurately to have been killed at Nujayr; e.g. in Ibn Sa'd, , v, p. 13.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ 'Askarī, , Awā'il, p. 310Google Scholar (lā anṢurukum Ḥattā tumallikūnī 'alaykum, fa-mallakūhu wa-tawwajūhu). His crowning was done “in the manner in which a king of QaḤṬān used to be crowned”; Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd, , p. 98:13 (fa-mallakūhu wa-tawwajūhu kamā yutawwaju l-maliku min QaḤṬān). Cf. the tribal kings of the Sulaym, Lecker, The Banū Sulaym, Appendix A.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ It should be remarked that according to some, Ash‘ath’s father was already the most important leader of Kinda, but this presumably unreliable statement is contradicted by the reports about the ridda. For example, Kalbī speaks of a direct shift of the leadership, after Kinda's return to Ḥaḍramawt, from the Banū Ḥujr Ākil al-Murār to the Ḥārith subdivision (omitting the Banū al-Ḥārith al-Wallāda altogether; cf. above, Section 1(b)). The first who reigned (sāda), he says, was Ash'ath's father, followed by Ash'ath himself, who embraced Islam “wearing a crown”; Ch. Lyall, “Ibn al-Kalbī's account of the First Day of al-Kulāb”, in Bezold, C. (ed.), Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern (Gieszen, 1906), p. 153;Google Scholar The Mufaḍḍaliyyāt, ed. Lyall, Ch. (Oxford, 1921), i, p. 441Google Scholar (wa-dakhalū Ḥaḍramawt fa-kharaja l-mulk min Banī Ākili l-Murār wa-sāda Banū al-Ḥārith b. Mu'āwiya, fa-awwalu man sāda minhum Qays b. Ma'dīkarib abū l-Ash'ath thumma l-Ash'ath b. Qays, fa-aslama l-Ash'ath wa-huwa mutawwaj; cf. above, n. 54); Olinder, G., The Kings of Kinda of the Family of Ākil al-Murār (Lund, 1927), p. 92.Google Scholar Elsewhere Ibn al-Kalbī, quoting his father, reports about an expedition to release a king of the Sakūn captured by the Banū 'Uqayl of the Qays 'Aylān, in which Ash‘ath’s father led, for the first time, the joint forces of the Sakūn and [the rest of] Kinda and which gave him the status of sharaf; Abū l-Faraj al-IṢfahānī, , Kitāb al-aghānī (Būlāq, A.H. 1285), xi, p. 131:5Google Scholar from the bottom (fa-huwa awwal yawm 'jtama'at fīhi l-Sakūn wa-Kinda li-Qays wa-bihi adraka l-sharaf). Cf. Ḥamza, , Ta'rīkh, p. 112,Google Scholar where a brief account of the Banū Ḥujr Ākil al-Murār's downfall is concluded with this passage: “When the kingship (mulk) of Kinda came to an end, their leadership (ri'āsa) shifted to Banū [the word seems to be superfluous] Jabala b. 'Adī b. Rabī'a b. Mu'āwiya l-Akramīna, then to Ma'dīkarib b. Jabala, then to Qays, [add: then to Ash'ath], who was the one who came to the Prophet with seventy Kindite notables (ashrāf), who then embraced Islam”. Note that this text is careful to distinguish between the mulk of Ḥujr Ākil al-Murār and the ri'āsa of Ash'ath and his forefathers. The crucial problem in connection with the status of Ash‘ath's father is of course his alleged authority over the ‘Amr b. Mu'āwiya subdivision. This problem is addressed by a valuable passage recorded by Ibn al-QifṬī, , Ta'rīkh al-Ḥukamā, 367,Google Scholar and Ibn Abī UṢaybi'a, , 'Uyūn al-anbā' fi Ṭabaqāt al-aṬibbā“, ed. Riḍā, Nizār (Beirut, 1965), 285f,Google Scholar in their entries about the philospher al-Kindī who, as has already been said, was a descendant of Ash'ath. Ash'ath and his father were both kings of all Kinda, 'aiī jamī Kinda. Ash‘ath’s grandfather and his great-grandfather, Ma'dīkarib and Mu'āwiya, were, in Ḥaḍramawt, the kings of the Banū l-Ḥārith al-AṢghar b. Mu'āwiya (see chart). Then this passage takes us beyond the Banū l-Ḥārith al-AṢghar and back to the days of Kindite greatness in northern Arabia: Mu'āwiya, son of al-Ḥārith al-Akbar, his father al-Ḥarith al-Akbar, his grandfather Mu'āwiya and his great-grandfather Thawr were kings on Ma'add in al-Mushaqqr, al-Yamāma and al-Bahrayn. (Incidentally, the philosopher's father, IsḤāq b. al-ṢabbāḤ, was the governor of Kūfa for al-Mahdī and al-Rashīd. Ibn Abī UṢaybi'a adds a remark about the philosopher's high position (he was 'aẓīm al-manzila) in the courts of al-Ma'mūn and al-Mu'taṢim and with regard to the latter's son AḤmad). Concerning Ash‘ath's participation in Kinda's deputation to the Prophet, note his admission that the members of the deputation ”did not consider him their best“ (ataytu…fi wafd lā yarawna annī afḍaluhum); AḤmad b. Ḥanbal., Musnad, v, p. 211:23.Google Scholar Consequently, the statement (Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, , Istī'āb, i, p. 133Google Scholar) that he was the ra'īs of the deputation is suspicious. It is not correct that he led a deputation of the Banū al-Ḥārith b. Mu'āwiya; cf. Caskel, , ii, p. 381.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Nasab Ma'add, i, pp. 138f.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Nasab Ma'add, i, pp. 141, 142. The pedigrees of the three leaders reveal that they belonged to different genealogical lines of the Banū Jabala (Ash'ath: …Mu'āwiya b. Jabala; ShuraḤbīl:…al-Aswad b. Jabala; Ḥujr:…'Adī b. Jabala).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Balādhurī, , FutūḤ, p. 189Google Scholar (wa-kāna… bi-l-Kūfa muqāwiman li-l- Ash'ath b. Qays al-Kindī fī l-ri'āsa); Crone, , Slaves on Horses, p. 101.Google Scholar

⁶² Ṭabarī, , iii, p. 334 [i, p. 2004]. (The claim that ShuraḤbīl and his father [the text has erroneously: his son], al-SimṬ, did not participate in the ridda and joined the Muslims, appears apologetic and false.)Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibn ‘Asākir, , TMD MS, iii, p. 34.Google Scholar Cf. Abū ’Alī al-Qālī, , Dhayl al-amālī wa-l-nawādir (Cairo, 1344/1926), p. 149Google Scholar (Ibn Kabsha is Ash‘ath’s brother al-Ṣabāḥ whose mother was Kabsha bint Sharāḥīl b. Ākil al-Murār).

⁶⁴ Nasab Ma'add, i, pp. 171, 1681 According to some, Ash‘ath’s mother was the daughter of al-Ḥārith (al- Malik) b. ‘Amr (al-Maqṡür) b. Ḥujr (Ākil al-Murār); Ibn ’Asākir, , TMD MS, iii, p. 36; cf. pp. 34, 35.Google Scholar But the former version seems to be confirmed by the identity of the above-mentioned maternal uncle. Cf. l-Baqā’, Abū, Manāqib Mazyadiyya, p. 75 (Ash‘ath is addressed in a verse: yā’ bna Āli l-Murari min qibali l-ummi).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ṭabarī, , iii p. 335 [i, p. 2005]. It is not clear to me how al-Jawn, “one of the kings of Kinda”, could be the paternal cousin of Ash‘ath’s father Qays, as is claimed in Ibn al-Anbārī, Sharḥ qaşā’id, p. 498.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibn Hishām, , al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. al-Saqqā, , al-Abyārī, and Shalabī, (Beirut, 1391/1971), iv, p. 232Google Scholar; Ṭabari, , iii p. 139Google Scholar [i, p. 1739]. According to other reports referring to this topic, the Kindites stated that the Banü ‘Abd Manāf were descendants of Ḥujr Ākil al-Murār or, as we find in yet another report, that the Banü. Hāshim were of Kinda. In some versions the Prophet mentioned, in addition to ‘Abbās, Abū Sufyān; see Ibn Sa‘d, i, pp. 22f. (p. 23: ‘Abbās and Abū Sufyān claimed Kindite descent li-ya'manā bi-l-Yaman); Kister, M. J. and Plessner, M., “Notes on Caskel's Gamharat an-Nasab”, Oriens, XXV-XXXVI (1976), pp. 58f.Google Scholar; reprinted in Kister, M. J., Society and Religion from Jahiliyya to Islam (London, 1990), iii.Google Scholar In another version of the above exchange with Muḥammad, the speaker is al-Jafshīsh al-Kindī who was reportedly rebuked by Ash’ath for raising the matter with the Prophet (provoking the latter's denial, which was considered detrimental to Kindite interests); Ṭabāranī, al-Mu‘jam al-kabï pp. 285f. (al-Jafshīsh al-Kindī); Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba, p. 491f. (Ibn al-Kalbī: al-Jafshīsh is Ma‘dān b. al-Aswad [there are other versions concerning his name]; he presented the question to Muhammad three times). Al-Jafshīsh was not of the Banū Ḥujr Ākil al-Murār but of their brother clan, the Banü al-Ḥārith al Wallāda. We infer this from his pedigree, reported by Ibn al-Kalbī (in the Iṣāba); Me‘dān b. Aswad b. Ma‘dīarib b. Thumāma b. al-Aswad. While this pedigree is admittedly too short to link him to al-Ḥārith al-Wallāda, it is almost identical to the pedigree of Masrūq b. Me‘dīkarib b. Thumāma b. al-Aswad b. Me‘dīkarib (read: b. ‘Abdallāh/al-Shayṭān; Nasab Ma‘add, p. 173) who was, as his pedigree shows, Me‘dān's paternal uncle. See also Qurtubi, Ta‘rīfft l-ansāb (above, n. 2), pp. 260f. Incidentally, the verse ascribed to al-Jafshīsh in Ibn Hajar, Iṣāba, i, p. 492, is ascribed in Nasab Ma‘;add, p. 173 (with one difference) to his paternal uncle Masrūq. This could be a case of disputed ascription, but it seems more likely that a passage mentioning al-Jafshīsh was omitted from Nasab Ma‘add. See on Masrūq b. Me‘dīkarib, above, n. II.

⁶⁷ Prof. Griaznevitch wrote to me about al-Rāiya “…During the field research of the Soviet-Yemeni Joint Expedition in 1983–84, not far from the exit of the big Wādī ‘Ayn to the valley Kasr in the centre of Kinda possessions, the archaeological site al-Rābiya, situated near the right side of the Wādī between the settlements Safila and Adab, was studied. According to local tradition, this was the place of a big market during the Middle Ages”.

⁶⁸ Ibn Ḥabīb, Muḥabbar, pp. 266f. (where it is erroneously said that Masrūq b. wā’il was of Kinda); cf. al-Marzūqī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, Kitāb al-azmina wa-l-amkina (Hyderabad, 1332), p. 165.Google Scholar Both sources are quoted in Crone, , Meccan Trade, p. 152Google Scholar, n. 24. (Crone remarks that she knows of “no concrete illustration of Qurashīs there”; yet ‘Abbās's business links in Ḥaḍramawt [see below] bring us close enough.) The text in Muḥabbar is garbled and Marzūqī's text is better concerning the prestige gained by the Ḥujr Akil al-Murār family as a result of the protection they provided for Qurashī trade. Muḥabbar: wa-kānat makruma li-āli l-baytayni jamī an wa-sāda banū Ākili l-Murār bi-faḍl Quraysh ‘alā l-nās. Marzā;qī: fa-kānat makruma li-ahli 1-baytayni wa-fadlu aḥadihimā alā l-ākhar ka faḍli Quraysh ‘alā sā’ iri l-nās; “…and the advantage of one (i.e. the family of Ḥujr Ākil al-Murār) over the other (i.e. the family of Masrūq b. Wāil) is like the advantage of Quraysh over the rest of the people”. This statement may stem from intertribal polemics but it is true nonetheless. The cooperation of the Kinda and Ḥaḍramawt tribes in guaranteeing the safe arrival of traders at al-Rābiya is noteworthy as is the special link between Kinda and Quraysh. On Masrūq b. Wā’i1 al-Ḥadramī see e.g. Ibn Ḥajar, , Işāba, vi, p. 92Google Scholar; Hamdānī, ,Iklī, ii pp. 329, 331.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ ‘Ufayyif “the small abstinent/chaste one”, prohibited (before Islam) the drinking of wine and avoided illicit sexual intercourse; Nasab Ma‘add, i p. 140; Muḥabbar, pp. 237, 239. Cf. Ibn Ḥajar, , Işāba, iv, pp. 515, 517.Google Scholar On ‘Ufayyifs alleged role in the ridda see Ibn A‘tham, Futūḥ, i p. 52.

⁷⁰ In other words, he allegedly forfeited the chance of becoming rub‘u l-islām

⁷¹ Ṭabarī, ii, pp. 3IIf [i, pp. II60f.] (another version, p. 312 [1162] inaccurately makes ‘Ufayyif a half-brother of Ash‘ath from his mother's side and his paternal cousin); Ibn Ḥajar, , Işāba, iv, pp. 515f.Google Scholar See the report about the perfume in Crone, P., Meccan Trade, p. 120, n. 67; see also op. cit., pp. 95f.Google Scholar

⁷² ‘Alī al-Ahdalī, Muḥammad b., Nathr al-durr al-maknūn min faḍiā’ al-Yaman al-maymūn (Beirut, 1407/1987), pp. 159, 160f. The Himyarite vassal king of the Yemen after the defeat of the Ethiopians, Ma’dīkarib b. Sayf b. Dhī Yazan, allegedly called Muḥammad's grandfather ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib “the son of our sister”; e.g. al-Mas’ūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, ed. Ch. Pellat (Beirut, 1966f.), p. 207. But this was not connected to his alleged Kindite “mother”: Suhaylī (al-Rawḍ al-unuf, ed. ṭāhā ‘Abd al-Rā’ Sa‘d [Cairo, 1391/1971], p. 161) explains that ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib's mother was of the Khazraj, who were (like the Himyarite king himself) Yemenites.Google Scholar

⁷³ Unsurprisingly, there was no unanimity about the identity of Kilāb's mother; cf. Ibn Ḥ Ummahāt al nabi, ed. Ḥusayn ‘Alī Maḥfūz (Baghdād, 1372/1952), p. 2b (Kilāb's mother was of the Kināna).

⁷⁴ Ibn al-Anabārī, Sharḥ gaṣā’id, p. 494 (the sons of the ‘Awātik fought with Ash‘ath’s father Qays b. Ma‘dīkarib who, together with warriors of the Shaybān, attacked camels belonging to the king of Hīra, ‘Amr b. Hind); cf. Ch. Lyall, J., the Mufaḍḍalīyāt: An Anthology of Ancient Arabian Odes (Oxford, 1921f), ii p. 184.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Lecker, , The Banū Sulaym, p. 114.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Note that there was a link on the eponymous level between Ash‘ath’s clan, the Banū Jabala (of the Ḥārith b. Mu‘āwiya subdivision) and the Banū al-Ḥārith al-Wallāda (of the ‘Amr b. Mu‘āwiya subdivision); Nasab Ma‘add, p. 139 (the mother of Jabala and of his brother Hujr was Lamīs bint Imri’i l-Qays b. al-Ḥārith al Wallāda); cf. op. cit., p. 173 (Lamīs was the daughter of al-Ḥāith al-Wallāda).

⁷⁷ al-Haythamī, Alī b. Abī Bakr, Majma‘ al-zawā’ id wa-manba‘ al-fawā’ id (Beirut, 1967), viii, p. 155Google Scholar (mini ’bnati H.M.D[!]); Ḥanbal, Aḥmad b., Musnad, v, p. 211:27Google Scholar (correctly, mini ‘bnati Jamd); Ṭabarānī, , al-Mu ‘jam al-kabīr, i p. 336Google Scholar (min binti Jamd b. Walīa l-Kindī; read: … Jamd b. Ma‘dīkarib b. Walīa). Ash‘ath’s child, whose name was al-Nu‘mān, died in his infancy; al-Baghdādī, ‘Abd al-Qādir b. ‘Umar, Khizānat al-adab, ed. ’Hārūn, Abd al-Salām (Cairo, 1967f.), iii p. 239.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Ibn Ḥajar, , Iṣāba, viii, pp. 88f (she is called here Qayla; she married Muḥammad in A.H. Io, some said: two months before his death); Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, v, p. 532; Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, 1stīāb, iv, pp. 1903f. (the version Qayla is nonsense; her brother gave her in marriage to Muḥammad); Ibn Sa‘d, viii, p. 148 (she was one of those who “gave themselves” to Muḥammad).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ya‘ūbī, , Ta’rīkh, ii p. 85Google Scholar (qubiḍa rasūlu ’llāhi qabla khurūjihā ilayhi mina l-Yaman, fa-khalafa ‘alayhā ‘Ikrima b. Abī Jahl). The wording in Ibn Ḥ Muᐥabbar, p. 95, may suggest that Ash‘ath gave her to ‘Ikrima immediately after Muḥammad's death: Ash‘ath himself carried his sister to Muḥammad, ḥattā idhā faṣala mina l-Yaman, balaghathu wafātu l-nabī (ş), fa-raddanā fa-zawwajanā ’, alma b. Abī Jahl.

⁸⁰ al-Zubayrī, Muṣ'ab b.‘Abdallāh, Kitāb Nasab Quraysh, ed. Levi-Provençal, E. (Cairo, 1953), p. 311Google Scholar:2 from the bottom (wa-lam yatruk waladan); cf. Ibn Sa‘d, vii, p. 404 (wa-laysa lahu ‘aqib); Ibn Ḥajar, , Iṣāba, iv, p. 539 (wa lam yu‘qib‘Ikrima).Google Scholar When Mecca was conquered, ‘Ikrima was married to his cousin Umm Ḥakīm bint al-Ḥārith b. Hishām and he was still married to her when he died in Shām several years later; Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, iv, p. 5:13; Ibn Ḥajar, , Iṣāba, viii, pp. 193f.Google Scholar There is evidence that when ’Ikrima was killed during the conquest of Shām (at Yarmūk or at Ajnādayni), a son of his named ‘Umar died with him; Ibn ‘Asākir, , TMD MS, xiii, p. 341Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Umar b. ’Ikrima. See also Ibn Ḥazm, , Ansāb, p. 145:5, where there is a lacuna in the text. ‘Umar b. ’Ikrima could not of course have been born by Qutayla.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ibn al-Barr, ‘Abd, Istīāb, iv, p. 1904.Google Scholar

⁸² ‘Ubayda, Abū, Azwāj al-nabī wa-awlāduhu, ed. Badīwī, Yūsuf ’Alī (Beirut, 1410/1990), p. 80Google Scholar; al-Ṡāliḥī, Azwāj al-nabī, p. 258. Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Bayhaqī, Dalā’ il al-nubuwwa, ed. Qal‘ajī, ‘Abd al-Mu‘ṭī (Beirut, 1405/1985), vii, p. 288:5Google Scholarfrom the bottom, quoting Abū ‘Ubayda, has a corrupt text: fa-lam talid li ‘1krima illā waladan wāḥidan; wāḥidan appears to be a lectio facilior for mukhabbalan and waladan was added later. Cf. Lisān al-‘arab, s.v. kh.b.l., p. 198: makhbül, mukhabbal is “someone who has no heart ”, lā fu’āda ma‘ahu, a majnūn.

⁸³ Ibn Sa‘d, viii, pp. 145, 148.

⁸⁴ Ibn Sa‘d, viii, p. 143 (Asmā’ bint al-Nu‘mān b. Abī l-Jawn b. al-Aswad b. al-Ḥārith b. Sharāḥīl b. al-Jawn b. Ākil al-Murār). There are different versions concerning the precise pedigree of Asmā’; Nasab Ma‘add, p. 172 (Asmā’ bint ‘Amr b. al-Ḥārith b. Sharāḥīl); Azwāj al-nabī, p. 242 (Asmā’ bint Ka‘b)); cf. Ibn al-Anbārī, Sharḥ qasā’ id, p. 498 (Bint ’Abd al-Raḥmān b. al-Jawn).

⁸⁵ It is not clear why the first meeting with Asmā’ was a failure: there are several contradictory and mutually exclusive explanations. In addition to Ibn Ḥabīb Muḥabbar, p. 94, see e.g. al-Ṣāliḥī Azwāj al-nabī, pp. 242f. It is not true that the Prophet had another wife who descended from al-Jawn, as suggested in Ibn Ḥabīb, Muḥabbar, p. 95, where an unnamed Jawniyya is said to have been brought to Medina by an Anṣārī: elsewhere the same Anṣārī, Abū Usayd of the Banū Sā‘ida, is said to have brought the aforementioned Asmā’; Ibn Sa’d, viii, pp. 143f. Ibn Ḥabīb's erroneous assumption that there were two wives of the Banū al-Jawn is rather strange because the Ṭabaqāt of Ibn Sa‘d, which should have been available to Ibn Ḥabīb, has a more complete text of the same report (its source is Ibn al-Kalbī) which includes Asmā”s name; Ibn Sa‘d, viii, p. 145. For the vocalization of the name Usayd see Ibn Mākūlā, , al-lkmāl, ed. al-Yamānī, (Hyderabad, 1381/1962), p. 70.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Ibn Ḥbīb, Muḥabbar, p. 94.Google Scholar This report is from Ibn al-Kalbī, from his father, from Abū Ṣāliḥ, from Ibn ‘Abbās; see Ibn Ḥajar, , Iṣāba, vii, p. 497 (wa-kāna khaṭabahā ḥina wafada aband ‘alayhi fī wafd Kinda). Cf. similarly in Ibn Sa‘d, viii, p. 145 (wa-kāna khaṭabahā ḥīna wafadat Kinda ‘alayhi ilā abīhā).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Ibn Sa‘d, viii, p. 143 (qadima l-Nu ‘mān b. Abī 1-Jawn l-Kindī … musliman). Significantly, Asmā” father lived with his brothers near al-Sharaba in Najd; Ibn Sa‘d, viii, p. 143 (also p. 144: wa-kānū yakūnūna bi-nāḥiyati Najd). On al-Sharaba (“between al-Salīla and al-Rabadha”) see Yāqūt, s.v. This fact is consequential: we realize that part of Kinda remained in Najd even after most of them had returned to Ḥaḍramawt (above, Section 1(b)). Had Asmā”s father been a member in Kinda's deputation, this would have indicated that the Kindites who lived in Najd were not cut off from Kinda's main body. However, this is problematic for chronological considerations: the deputation came in A.H. 10 (e.g. Ṭabarī, iii, p. 138 [i, p. 1739]), whereas the marriage to Asmā’ is dated to Rabī al-Awwal, A.R. 9; Ibn Sa‘d, viii, p. 145. A.H. to is also given as the date of Muhammad's marriage to Qutayla, which was agreed upon with Ash‘ath when he came with Kinda's deputation (some said that the Prophet had married Qutayla two months before he died; above, n. 78).

⁸⁸ Ibn Ḥabīb Muḥabbar, pp. 94f. (” Qayla ”); Ibn Sa‘d viii, p. 147 (from Ibn al-Kalbī, from his father, from Abū Ṣāliḥ, from Ibn ‘Abbās).

⁸⁹ Cf. Ash‘ath’s words to ’Alī b. Abī Ṭālib when he suggested marrying his daughter Ja‘da to ’Alī’s son al Ḥasan; Ibn ’Asākir, , TMD MS, iii, p. 46:1Google Scholar (he explained Ja‘da’s advantages over the daughter of another Yemenite leader: fa-hal laka fī ashrafa minhā baytan wa-akrama minhā ḥasaban wa-atamma jamālan wa-akthara mālan?). Cf. El ², 242b, s.v. al-Ḥasan b. ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib (L. Veccia Vaglieri). Incidentally, Ash‘ath married off two daughters, Ḥabbāna and Qarība, to sons of ‘Uthmān b. ‘Affān; see Crone, , Slaves on Horses, p. 110 = Caskel, s.vv. Ḥabbana bt. Ma‘dīkarib (who married ‘Amr b. ‘Uthmān) and Qarība bint Ma’dīkarib (who married Khālid b. ‘Uthmān).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ibn Ḥajar, , Iṣāba, vii, pp. 494, 496.Google Scholar The ta‘āla anta story is from Qatāda; Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, v, P. 397:5; al-Ṣāliḥī, Azwāj al-nabī, p. 243. Cf. also the complaint of Asmā“s father about the size of Muḥammad’s bridal money (mahr); Ibn Sa’d, viii, p. 143.

⁹¹ She was reportedly blind (wa-kānat makfūfa); ‘Askarī, Awā’il, p. 311; Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd, p. 98:21 (wa-kānat ‘amyā’). (The handicap probably made her less desirable for other potential husbands.) Cf. Balādhurī”, Futūḥ, p. 141 (who omits Ismā ‘īl and adds three daughters: Qurayba, ḥubāba and Ja‘da). In this source Abū Bakr’s sister is called Qurayba. Cf. Ibn Qutayba, Ma‘ārif, p. 168: beside Umm Farwa, Abū Bakr also had a sister named Qurayba. Umm Farwa had two former husbands: a man of the Azd, and Tamīm al-Dārī. In Abū l-Baqā’, Manāqib Mazyadiyya, p. 78, the order is reversed. On Ash‘ath’s display of generosity on the occasion of his marriage see al-Tha ‘ālibī, , Thimār al-qulūb fi I-muḍāf wa-l-mansūb, ed. Ibraāhīm, Abū I-Fadl (Cairo, 1384/1965), PP. 88f.Google Scholar (walīmatu l-Ash‘ath); al-amthālAḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Maydānī, Majma‘ Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Maydānī, Majma‘, ed. Muḥammad Muḥyī 1-Dīn ‘Abd al-Ḥamiīd (Cairo, 1374/1955), p. 379Google Scholar (awlamu mina l-Ash'ath).

⁹² The text in Ṭabarī, p. 339 [i, p. 201 1] creates the misleading impression that the Prophet gave her in marriage to Ash‘ath: wa-qad kāna khaṭaba Umm Farwa hint Abī Quḥāfa maqdamahu ’alā rasūli ’llāhi (ṣ)fa-zawwajahu wa-akhkharahā ilā an yaqdama l-thāniya. See also the slightly obscure text in Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, i p. 98:6: wa-lammā aslama khaṭaba Umm Farwa …fa-ujība ilā dhālika wa-‘āda ilā l-Yaman. An important variant is included in the parallel text found in Ibn ‘Asākir, , TMD MS, iii, p. 42 (the report is from Sayf b. ‘Umar): wa-kāna qad khaṭaba Umm Farwa hint Abī Quḥāfa ilā Abī Quḥāfa maqdamahu etc.; the omission in Ṭabarī, through a scribal error, occurred because of the repetition of the name Abū Quḥāfa. See also op. cit., p. 43 (from Sayf again: tazawwaja I-Ash‘ ath maqdamahu ‘alā rasūli’ llāhi [ṣ] ilā Abī Quḥāfa Umm Farwa etc.). In short, it was Abū Quḥāfa, not the Prophet, who gave her in marriage to Ash‘ath.Google Scholar

⁹³ Abū Bakr was survived by his father; al-Balādhurī, , al-Shaykhāni Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq wa-‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb wa-wulduhumā bi-riwāyat al-Balādhurī fī ansāb al-ashrāf, ed. Iḥsān Ṣidqī 1-‘Amad (Kuwayt, 1989), p. 43.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See the section on the ‘Amr subdivision in Ibn Ḥazm, Ansāb, pp. 427f.; far more detailed is the section in Nasab Ma‘add, i, pp. 168–78 (qāḍīs in Ḥimṣ and Kūfa belonging to the Banū al-Jawn b. Ḥujr Ākil al-Murār, of the ‘Amr b. Mu‘āwiya, are recorded on pp. 171f.; Rajā’ b. Ḥaywa is mentioned on p. 177).

⁹⁵ See e.g. Ibn Ḥazm, Ansāb, pp. 425f. Note the curious link between Kinda and Armenia/Adharbījān which emerges clearly from the above information; obviously, the genealogical literature is a good source for tracing such links.

⁹⁶ Ibn Ḥajar, , Iṣāba, iii, pp. 26fGoogle Scholar; Ibn ‘Asākir, TMD, Mukht., ix, pp. 20If.; Nasab Ma‘add, i, p. 174. Cf. on him Buckley, R. P., “The Muḥtasib”, Arabica, XXXIX (1992), pp. 60f.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Ibn Ḥajar, , Iṣāba, v, pp. 632f. (The relevant passage in Nasab Ma'add [i, p. 176] is garbled. In Caskel, i, no. 239, Zubaid[!] and ‘Abd al-Raḥmān are incorrectly presented as the brothers of the Walīa kings; in fact they were the kings’ nephews.) Their father al-Ṣalt (who is not reported to have emigrated with his sons) is said to have been appointed by Muḥammad in charge of the kharṣ, i.e. as an evaluator, for the purpose of taxation, of the fruit upon the palm-trees (in Ḥaḍramawt?); Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba, iii p. 444. The source of this report is his grandson, al-Ṣalt b. Zuyayd b. al-Ṣalt, a ḥalīf of the Qurashī Banū Jumaḥ who officiated as the qāḍa of Medina until 114/732; Ibn Sa‘d, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, al-qism al-mutammim li-tābi ‘ī ahl al-Madīna wa-man bs‘ dahum, ed. Ziyād MuḤammad Manṣūr (Medina, 1408/1987), pp. 279f. (printed: Zubayd); Khalīfa b. Khayyāt, Ta’rīkh, ed. Suhayl Zakkār (Damascus, 1968), p. 544.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Ḥajar, Ibn, Iṣāba, ii p. 629 (Zuyayd)Google Scholar; Iṣāba, v, p. 632 (Kathīr).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Cf. Hinds, M., “Sayf b. ‘Umar's sources on Arabia”, in Abdadlla, Abdelgadir M., Al-Sakkar, Sami and Mortel, Richard T. (eds.), Studies in the History of Arabia, i: Sources for the History of Arabia, part ii (Riyāḍ, 1399/1979), p. 8Google Scholar (concerning Kathīr b. al-Ṣalt's reports on the ridda, Hinds correctly suggests that he may have been an eyewitness or contemporary of those events).

¹⁰⁰ Ḥajar, Ibn, Iṣāba, v, p. 633Google Scholar = al-Jumaḥī, Muḥammad b. Sallām, ṭabaqāt fuḥal al-shu‘arā’, ed. Shākir, Maḥmūd Muḥammad (Cairo, 1394/1974), i, p. 134Google Scholar; cf. Lecker, , The Banū Sulaym, p. 86, n. iii. On the qāḍī of Medina who was Kathīr's nephew see above, n. 97.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Ibn Sa‘d, , v, p. 14.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Nasab Ma‘add, i, p. 176. Qays b. Mikhwas must have been spared during the ridda because he was still a small boy. Note the reemergence of the name Walī‘a which could indicate that the glory associated with it was stronger than the painful memory of the calamitous ridda. Note in connection with this family’s status in the Abbasid period that a daughter of one of the four kings brought to Medina as a slavegirl bore ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbās almost all his children, including his youngest son ‘Alī who was the father of the Abbasid caliphs; Lecker, “Judaism among Kinda”, Section II(a).

¹⁰³ Suffice it to mention here that he lost an eye at Yarmūk (Caskel, , ii, p. 381Google Scholar, denies that he partook in this battle) and participated in the battles of Qadisiyya, Mada'in, Jahala’ and Nihawand. He was the last on the list of witnesses in the document of arbitration between ‘All and Mu'awiya. He died aged sixty-three in A.H. 40, forty days after the murder of ‘Alī b. Abī Tālib; al-Iṣfahani, Abū Nu‘aym, Ma‘rifat al-ṣaḥāba, ed. ‘Uthmān, Muḥammad Rāḍī b. Ḥājj (Medina and Riyāḍ, 1408/1988), ii, p. 307Google Scholar; Qutayba, Ibn, Ma‘ārif, p. 586Google Scholar and ’Asākir, Ibn, TMD MS, iii, p. 34 (Yarmūk)Google Scholar; al-Barr, Ibn ‘Abd, Istī‘āb, i, p. 134Google Scholar (the taḥkīm; another version dates his death to A.H. 42). Cf. al-Athīr, Ibn, Usd al-ghāba, i, p. 98:19 (wa-kāna mimman alzama ‘Aliyyan bi-l-taḥkīm wa-shahida l-ḥakamayni bi-Dūmati l-Jandal).Google Scholar Cf. Crone, , Slaves on Horses, pp. 110f., who discusses Ash‘ath and some of his descendants.Google Scholar