Chapter L (6)

_Othmân_: ‘Alas, alas! what is all this I hear of you, my deputies and governors? I greatly fear that the complaints may be true; and it is upon me the burden falleth.’ They replied that the Caliph had sent his own men out to see, and they had found nothing wrong. Then he asked what they advised him to do. _Sád_ (ex-governor of Kûfa) would have the traitors, who were burrowing in the dark, unearthed and slain; then sedition would subside. _Muâvia_: ‘In Syria there is no disaffection, and it would be everywhere the same were the people fairly and firmly dealt with.’ _Abu Sarh_ proposed to work through the Dewân, increasing or diminishing stipends by way of reward and punishment. _Ibn Aámir_ advised to engage the restless spirits in war, and so the crisis would pass over. _Amru_, embittered by his supersession in Egypt, is represented as addressing Othmân in coarse abuse. Othmân replied despondingly:--‘Cruel measures he would not sanction. If rebellion was to come, no one should, at the least, have that to say against him. The millstone would grind round and round to the bitter end. Good had it been, if before it began to revolve, he had been taken to his rest. There was nought left for him but to be quiet and to see that no wrong was done to anyone.’ So he gave the governors leave to depart, saying only that if fresh campaigns were set on foot, he would approve of that; otherwise he would hold on his way.

As they took their leave, Káb, the Jewish convert, said, ‘It will be the grey mule that wins,’ meaning Muâvia, who overheard the saying and from that moment (so the tradition runs) kept the Caliphate in view.

Another scene is represented, in which Othmân, surrounded by his own advisers, sends for Aly, Zobeir, and Talha. Muâvia pleaded before them the cause of the aged Caliph, and warned them of the danger they ran to their own selves in allowing any attack calculated to abate the sacredness of the Caliph’s person; it was, he said, both their duty and their interest to support him in his feeble old age. On this, Aly reproached Muâvia as the son of Hind, the ‘chewer of Hamza’s liver.’ ‘Let alone my mother,’ he responded angrily; ‘she became a good believer, and after that was not a whit behind thine own.’ Othmân interposed: ‘My cousin Muâvia doth speak the truth. Now tell me wherein I have gone astray, and I will amend my ways. It may be that I have been too open-handed towards my kinsmen. Take back that which they have received.’ So Abu Sarh disgorged 50,000 dirhems; and Merwân 15,000, and they all departed for the moment satisfied.

But all these accounts must be received with suspicion. In the midst of such violent factions as were springing up, the marvel is that tradition has preserved so consistent a narrative as we have.

[475] Adapting the words from Sura xxxix. v. 39.

[476] For the Lesser Pilgrimage, or Omra, see _Life of Mahomet_, p. xii. It may be performed in any month of the year, but preferably in Rajab (three months earlier than the commonly received date of the attack, which I have followed); and some traditions accordingly give this as the date of the advance upon Medîna. That, however, would make the interval (from January to May) too long for the intervening events, which were hurried through within the period of a couple of months, if so long.

[477] See above, p. 313.

[478] The men of Kûfa pitched at Al Awas; the Bussorah party at Dzu Khashab; the Egyptians at Dzu Marwa--all places in the close neighbourhood of the city.

[479] They marched off, we are told, expecting that the citizens would break up their armed gathering as soon as they were gone, and concerting to return again each from their separate road.

[480] The history of the document is obscure. On the one hand, it certainly was sealed with the Caliph’s signet; but who affixed the seal, and whether it was surreptitiously obtained, cannot be told. Nobody alleges Othmân’s complicity. Most traditions attribute the writing and sealing of the order to Merwân, the Caliph’s unpopular cousin, who, throughout the narrative, receives constant abuse as the author of Othmân’s troubles; but all this is manifestly tinged by Abbasside and anti-Omeyyad prejudice. Aly’s objection of collusion between the three insurgent bodies appears unanswerable. There must have been some preconcerted scheme as to the simultaneous return of the three camps; and there is a strong presumption of something unfair as regards the document also. Amidst conflicting evidence, it is beyond the historian’s power to offer any conclusive explanation. It is, of course, possible that Merwân may have taken upon himself the issue and despatch of the rescript; and, indeed, there was not wanting ground for his venturing on such a course (and something perhaps also to be said for his doing it unknown to Othmân), excepting only the deception of the insurgents by false promises. The insurgents may also have got scent of the document before they started ostensibly with the purpose of returning home. But these are all mere assumptions.

The Persian version of Tabari has a different story, namely, that the Egyptian band, on seizing the document, turned their faces back again towards Medîna, despatching at the same time messengers to apprise the Kûfa and Bussorah bands of Othmân’s treachery, and to recall them, so that all should reach Medîna and join in the attack together. Neither Ibn al Athîr nor Ibn Khallicân have anything to this effect, and it is hardly consistent with Aly’s speech, noticed above. The Arabic original of Tabari, now being published, may possibly throw further light on this chapter.

[481] Mohammed ibn Maslama, a Companion (as we have seen) highly trusted both by Mahomet and his successors; and Zeid ibn Thâbit, the collector of the Corân, tried to speak in confirmation of what Othmân had said, but were violently silenced and abused by the rebels Hakam ibn Jabala and Mohammed ibn Coteira.

[482] There are traditions, but of an entirely Abbasside stamp, of other interviews between Aly and the Caliph, with repeated promises of the latter to amend; Aly recriminating that these promises were no sooner made, even from the pulpit and before the congregation, than under the baneful influence of Merwân they were broken. Even Nâila, his wife, is represented as blaming her weak-minded husband for his fickleness. But were all this true, it would go but a little way to relieve Aly, Zobeir, and Talha from the charge of desertion, or, worse, of treasonable collusion with rebels against the rightful monarch--a short-sighted policy even in their own interest.

[483] He is called Al Ghâficky, the ‘Ameer,’ or Commander of the insurgents.

[484] According to some traditions, we are told, that Othmân prevailed on Aly to procure for him a three days’ truce, under the pretence of issuing orders to the governors for a reform of the administration; and that he treacherously employed the time instead in strengthening the defences, and excused himself by saying that the time was too short to carry out the promised reforms. But the story is altogether of the Abbasside type.

[485] The authorities are conflicting as to the length of the siege, though the several stages of the attack and investment are sufficiently well defined. After the first uproar Othmân still presided at the daily prayers for thirty days, after which he was besieged for forty days--that is ten weeks in all. Another tradition is that after the blockade had lasted eight and forty days, tidings of coming succour reached the city, and then the investment became severe. But this would leave too long an interval--namely, three weeks--between the report of help being on its way and the final issue, before which the columns, hurrying from Syria and Bussorah, should have had ample time to arrive at Medîna. The Syrian column, we are told, reached as far as Wâdy al Cora, and that from Bussorah as far as Rabadza, when they heard that all was over, and accordingly turned back.

[486] The talk among the courtiers of Al Mâmûn, in the third century, as reflected in the _Apology of Al Kindy_, was that Aly, even at a much earlier period, contemplated the putting of Othmân to death (_Apology_, p. 25). There seems to be no proof or presumption of this; but anyhow, one cannot but feel indignant at the attitude of Aly, who would do so much and no more; who sent his son to join the Caliph’s guard at the palace gate, and was scandalised at his being denied water to drink; and yet would not so much as raise a finger to save his life.

We have also traditions in which Othmân is represented as reproaching Talha for encouraging the insurgents to a more strict enforcement of the blockade; but, whatever his demerits in deserting the Caliph, this seems incredible. The ordinary account is that Talha as well as Zobeir, on hearing of the rebel excesses, kept to his house; others, again, say that they both quitted Medîna.

Omm Habîba, as daughter of Abu Sofiân, naturally sympathised with Othmân. Hantzala, one of the citizens of Kûfa who had accompanied the insurgents, was so indignant at their treatment of one of ‘the Mothers of the Faithful,’ that he went off to his home, and there gave vent to his feelings in verses expressive of his horror at the scenes his comrades were enacting at Medîna.

One day, we are told, Othmân, goaded by the thirst of himself and his household, ascended the roof, and cried aloud: ‘Ye men! know ye that I bought the well Rûma, and furnished it with gear that the Moslems might quench their thirst thereat? and now ye will not let me have one drop to quench my thirst. Moreover, I builded you such and such a mosque; and now ye hinder me from going forth to say my prayers in the Great Mosque.’ And so on, contrasting the various benefits he had conferred upon them, and the kind and loving words the Prophet used to address to him, with the cruel treatment he was now receiving; whereat the hearts of all were softened, and the word was passed round to hold back from pressing the attack. But Ashtar, the rebel, said, ‘He is but playing with you and practising deceit,’ and so he resumed the attack. There are many such traditions, but they seem to possess little authority.

[487] The pilgrims, in order to reach Mecca in time for the pilgrimage (beginning on the 8th of Dzul Hijj, June 7), must have left Medîna a week or ten days previously; that is, some three weeks before the final attack on the palace.

[488] The one killed was Moghîra, a Thackîfite from Tâyif. He was a confederate of the Beni Zohra, the same who had persuaded that clan to retire from the Coreishite army when it marched forth to attack Mahomet at Bedr (_Life of Mahomet_, p. 228).

Merwân received a sword-cut, which severed one of the tendons of the neck, and left him, when he recovered, with his neck stiff and shortened. The rebels were about to despatch him when his foster-mother cried out: ‘Do ye seek to kill him? he is dead already; if ye would sport with and mutilate his body, that were inhuman and unlawful.’ So they left him. In after days, when Merwân came to power, he showed his gratitude to this woman by giving her son a command.

[489] The blood, we are told, flowed down the leaves just touching these words: ‘If they rebel, surely they are schismatics; thy Lord will swiftly avenge you.’ (Sura ii. v. 138.) The appropriateness of the text, however, may of itself have suggested the story.

When the insurgents first rushed in, he was at the moment reading the appropriate passage in Sura iii. v. 174. Referring to the battle of Ohod, and the danger in which Medîna was then placed, the disaffected citizens are there represented as taunting Mahomet and his followers in these words: ‘_Verily, the men (of Mecca) have gathered forces against you; wherefore, be afraid of the same_. But (the taunt) only increased their faith, and they said: _The Lord sufficeth for us; He is the best Protector_.’ This was a favourite text of Othmân’s, and he may perhaps have turned to it for comfort now that vain was the help of man.

[490] The actual murderers were Al Ghâficky, the leader, and Sudân, who was himself killed. Kinâna ibn Bishr is also named. All these belonged to the Egyptian band, which seems to have contained the most rabid of the insurgents. Amr ibn al Hamac leapt upon the body, hardly yet breathless, and inflicted nine wounds--‘three for the Lord’s cause, and six to satisfy his own passion.’

[491] These two were among the chief men ‘whose hearts were gained over’ by largesses from the booty after the battle of Honein.--_Life of Mahomet_, p. 436. Hakîm is frequently mentioned in the Prophet’s biography. It was Hakîm who carried supplies to his aunt Khadîja when shut up with Mahomet in the Sheb.--_Life_, p. 100.

It is said that a party of the citizens of Medîna made an attempt to stop the funeral, but desisted on seeing that a tumult would arise. We are also told that Aly himself, on hearing of the design to molest the procession and cast stones at the mourners, did his best to prevent it. Indeed, Abbasside tradition abounds with attempts to rescue the memory of Aly from the obloquy attaching to the heartless part he had been acting. For example, Masûdy gives us a tradition that when Aly heard that all was over he hastened to the palace and asked his son how it had happened--as though he could not for many days have foreseen the fatal termination to which the blockade was tending!

[492] The field was called Hashh Kaukab--the Garden of the Star.

[493] My impression, on the whole, is that it was an afterthought. The narrative of those who side with Talha and Zobeir is as follows: After Othmân’s death the city was for some days in the hands of the insurgents. No one ventured to accept the Caliphate. Sád and Zobeir had already quitted the city; and all the members of the Omeyya clan who were able had effected their escape to Mecca. The rebels themselves were at their wits’ ends: ‘If we quit Medîna,’ they said, ‘and no Caliph is appointed, anarchy will burst forth everywhere. It appertaineth unto you (addressing the men of Medîna) to appoint a Caliph. Wherefore look ye out a man for the throne, and make him Caliph. We give you one day’s grace for the same. If ye choose him, well; but if not, then we shall slay Aly, Zobeir, and Talha, as well as a great number of you.’ Alarmed at these threats, the leading citizens repaired to Aly, who, at first, bade them seek another; but they constrained him; and, as a last resource, to rid them of the insurgents, he consented. Then they drew Zobeir (who, by this time, had returned) and Talha to the Mosque, and forced them, at the point of the sword, to swear.

It seems certain that the rebels of Kûfa and Bussorah were in favour respectively of Zobeir and Talha; but that they were induced to accept Aly, either through fear (as the partisans of the two pretenders hold) of the Egyptian regicides, or because the citizens made choice of Aly.

[494] Thus Sád, the conqueror of Irâc, refused to swear till all else had done so; whereupon, Ashtar, head of the conspirators from Kûfa, threatened to behead him; but Aly said, ‘Leave him alone; I will be surety for him.’ Moghîra, also, and a company of the late Caliph’s adherents, declined to swear, and were left unmolested. Amongst them was Hassân, the poet, and his brother Zeid (collector of the Corân), whom Othmân had appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of the latter, it is said that when Othmân was first attacked, he cried to his fellow-citizens, ‘Ye men of Medîna, be ye _Ansârs_ (Helpers) _of the Lord_ for the second time, even as ye were Ansârs of His Prophet at the first.’ But Abu Ayûb, another of the citizens, made answer and said, ‘Verily, he shall get no help from us. Let the multitude of his train-band slaves be his _Ansârs_!’

[495] This servile population (Sabâya or ‘captives’) had been pouring for years in a continuous stream, during the campaigns, into Medîna. They were employed as domestic servants, warders, body-guards, &c. Some followed trades, in quasi-freedom, paying the profits to their masters. They mostly embraced the Moslem faith because of the privileges it conferred. On the outbreak they became insubordinate, and broke away into a defiant attitude. This would occur the more readily as they formed the guards of the treasury and mansions of the great men; and, being the only trained force at Medîna, no doubt themselves felt their power. We find them similarly taking part in the outbreak at Bussorah. Like the Janissaries or Memlûk of later days, they were a petulant brood. Immediately on homage being done to Aly, they are said to have lampooned him in minatory verses, to which Aly (not to be outdone by the poetry even of slaves) replied in extempore couplets. Proclamation was made that slaves not returning to their masters would be treated as outlaws, but it had no effect.

[496] The tradition runs that Moghîra, at the first, gave sound and sincere advice to this effect; but that, finding Aly obstinately opposed to it, he returned next day, saying that, on reflection, he had changed his mind. When Ibn Abbâs came, Aly told him that Moghîra had, at the first, attempted to deceive him, but on the second day had spoken true, and advised him to put in his own men. ‘Not so,’ said Ibn Abbâs; ‘just the reverse. It was the truth which he spake at the first; the last was not his true opinion.’ And so it turned out; for Moghîra, finding his advice disregarded, departed to join the malcontents at Mecca

[497] _Life of Mahomet_, pp. 324 and 527.

[498] I have given this conference fully, because, in substance at least, it shows the impracticable bent of Aly’s mind which quickly drew on the civil war. It is also not unlikely in itself. The purport of such a conversation would become known; and, moreover, besides this and one or two other uncertain conversations, we have little or nothing to explain the early events of Aly’s Caliphate, and the motives which actuated him.

[499] Amru, it is said, pressed this course upon Muâvia, saying, in his proverbial style, ‘Show the dam her foal, it will stir her bowels.’

[500] The officers appointed were his cousin Abdallah ibn Abbâs, a faithful adherent, and his brother Cutham; Omar, son of Abu Salma (half-brother of Omm Salma, the Prophet’s widow); Abu Leila, nephew of Abu Obeida; Aly’s own son Mohammed, son of his Hanifite wife, &c.

[501] For this passage in the Prophet’s life see _Life of Mahomet_, pp. 311 _et seq._

[502] We are treading now on specially factious ground, and have to weigh with care the bias of tradition which represents Ayesha as suddenly converted from a deadly enemy of Othmân into the champion of his memory. Thus, when, on receiving the tidings of the murder on the way back from Mecca, she declared that she would avenge his death: ‘What!’ cried her informant, startled by her zeal; ‘is this thy speech now, whilst but yesterday thou wast foremost to press the attack upon him as an apostate?’ ‘Yea,’ she replied; ‘but even now he repented him of that which they laid to his charge, and yet after that they slew him.’ In reply, her informant recited these verses: ‘Thou wast the first to foment the discontent. Thou commandedst us to slay the prince for his apostasy, and now, &c.’ How far this has been invented (possibly as a foil to Aly’s equally strange and inconsistent conduct), or whether the inconsistency in Ayesha’s conduct was really as strange as here represented, it is difficult to say. Anyhow, it must be admitted that Ayesha was a jealous, violent, intriguing woman, a character that may well account for much that would otherwise appear strange.

[503] This famous camel is an object of special interest to tradition. Some say it was bought for Ayesha in Yemen; others, that it belonged to the Orni guide who piloted the expedition; and that, in addition to a large sum for his services, he got the camel purchased for Ayesha in exchange for his own.

[504] The women of Mecca accompanied Ayesha as far as Dzât Ire. Some of Mahomet’s widows may have been at Mecca just then for the pilgrimage, and, in the present troubled state of Medîna, they may have preferred to stay on there. Perhaps some of them may have settled permanently in the Holy City, On the other hand, we know from a previous notice that Omm Habîba, at any rate, still resided at Medîna.

[505] Saîd inquired of Talha and Zobeir which of them was to be the Caliph. ‘Whichever,’ was the answer, ‘the people may choose.’ ‘But,’ replied Saîd, ‘if ye go forth as the avengers of the blood of Othmân, then the succession should of right devolve upon his sons,’ two of whom were with the rebel force. ‘That,’ they answered, ‘it will be for the chief men of Medîna eventually to settle amongst them.’

[506] Meaning Talha and Zobeir themselves, and intimating that these had had as much hand in fomenting the insurrection, and were as responsible for its fatal result, as anybody else.

[507] Omm al Fadhl.

[508] The incident is adduced to show the alarm of Aly. He had sent for Abdallah, Omar’s son, who declined to pledge himself to join the army against the rebels of Bussorah till he saw what the other citizens of Medîna did. On this he prepared to leave for Mecca, assuring his stepmother (Aly’s daughter) that he meant to keep aloof from the rebels, which he did.

[509] This column, which was got up in haste and with difficulty (for there was no enthusiasm at any time for Aly), was composed chiefly of men belonging to Kûfa and Bussorah in Aly’s interest. What these were doing then at Medîna does not appear.

[510] The commander of the first campaign after Mahomet’s death.

[511] Only one man of the band from Bussorah that attacked Othmân, the warrior Horcûs, escaped, at the intercession of the Beni Sád.

[512] Abu Mûsa, Governor of Kûfa, abused Ammâr, the envoy of Aly, as a murderer. When urged by Hasan (whom on his arrival he embraced affectionately) to support his father in putting down the dissension that rent the people, Abu Mûsa replied that he had heard the Prophet say that ‘in the event of sedition, walking was better than riding, standing better than walking, and sitting better than either.’ He exhorted the citizens, therefore, to adopt this maxim, and, following the example of the Coreish, to sit still at home;--‘if they studied their eternal interests, they would do this; if only their temporal interests, they would go forth and fight.’ A tumult arose; the palace was sacked, and he was deposed.

Hasan, spite of his want of ambition, must have managed the business well, especially after the failure of the previous deputations, which consisted of such able men as Mohammed, son of Abu Bekr, the sons of Abbâs and Jafar, and Ashtar the arch-regicide.

The spiritless _rôle_ assigned by tradition to Hasan is illustrated by a conversation which passed between him and his father at Dzu Câr. _Hasan_: ‘Thou hast ever neglected my advice, my father, and now thou wilt be deserted all round, and slain.’ _Aly_: ‘And thou never ceasest whining like a girl. What advice of thine have I not followed?’ Hasan replied that his father should have quitted Medîna before Othmân was slain; after the murder, he should not have accepted the Caliphate till the provinces had agreed in his nomination; and now that Talha and Zobeir had risen up, he should have stayed at home, and let them take the first offensive step. To the first point Aly answered that at the time he was himself besieged, and could not, even if he had so wished, escape from Medîna; that he had been regularly elected, and would fight it out to the end; that as for staying at home, he would have been like a hyæna, baited by enemies on all sides; and that if he did not look after his own interests, he saw no one else who would do so for him. The conversation may be fictitious, but it entirely accords with Hasan’s poor and unaspiring character.

[513] Mohammed son of Abu Bekr, the regicide, was with Aly during the impending battle, which would seem to show that all those concerned in the insurrection against Othmân were not kept back. Possibly the order applied only to the Bedouins from Kûfa that were so concerned.

[514] Among other things, Aly said to Zobeir: ‘Dost thou remember the day when we both were with the Prophet among the Beni Ghanam; and he looked on me and smiled, and I smiled in return; and thou saidst to him, “Do not allow the son of Abu Tâlib to vapour thus;” and he answered, “It is no vapouring to quarrel about; thou doest him an injustice”?’ And Zobeir was touched.

The attitude of Talha and Zobeir is variously represented. They both appear to have assented to Aly’s proposals; and (notwithstanding Talha’s speech about compulsory swearing of allegiance) to have continued peaceful negotiations.

On the other hand, Abdallah son of Zobeir manifests the same ambitious spirit which led him many years afterwards into rebellion, and at one time nearly gained for him the Caliphate. He is represented as now taunting his father with faint-heartedness in swearing to Aly that he would not fight; and even persuading him to release himself from the oath by the legal substitution of freeing a slave.

Again, it is said that Zobeir was staggered when he heard that Ammâr was in the field against him, in consequence of Mahomet’s having once said that _Ammâr would be slain by an ungodly host_ (a matter of which we shall hear more below). The general tenor of tradition is, that, from whatever cause, he retired, without fighting, into the neighbouring valley, and there met his death.

It is very difficult to weave a narrative at once faithful and consistent out of all this. The conversations of the rebel leaders with Aly must have been to a great extent conjectural; and the surprise of both armies no doubt adds to the confusion of the narrative as given by our authorities. The general outline, however, is established.

[515] The Eastern traveller will recognise and appreciate the illustration.

[516] This camel is a prominent subject in tradition, as we might expect from its having given its name to the battle, and many tales of heroism are told both in its attacks and defence. One says he never heard anything so fearful as the scream it gave when hamstrung.

[517] The numbers may be exaggerated; but the loss of life was, no doubt, immense, and it is evidence of the terrible fury with which the battle was fought. Of one tribe, the Beni Dhabba, alone, 1,000 men are said to have been slain. The strong partisan feelings both of Bedouin against Coreish, and of the opposing families of Hâshim and Omeyya, long pent up, tended to give bitterness to the conflict; and there was in addition the new cry of vengeance for the blood of Othmân.

[518] So carefully were Aly’s orders against plundering observed, that whatever was found on the field, or in the insurgent camp, was gathered together in the Great Mosque, and every man was allowed to claim his own. To the malcontents who complained that they were not allowed to take booty, Aly replied that the rights of war, in this case, lasted only so long as the ranks were arrayed against each other; and that, immediately on submission, the insurgents resumed their rights and privileges as brother Moslems.

[519] ‘She of the two shreds.’--_Life of Mahomet_, p. 145.

[520] There is a great abundance of tradition concerning Ayesha, both in the battle and after it. In the heat of the action, Aly’s soldiers taunted her as ‘the _unnatural_ Mother of the Faithful.’ The soldiers on her side, in reply, extemporised a couplet, extolling her as ‘the noblest and best of Mothers.’ When they told it to her, she was much affected, and exclaimed, ‘Would that I had died twenty years before this!’ Aly also, when he heard it, said, ‘Would that I too had died twenty years ago!’

Ayesha, always ready in repartee, was not very particular in her language, and some of the speeches attributed to her are both coarse and intemperate. Asim approaching her litter on the field, she cursed him for the liberty he had taken. ‘It was but a little something red and white,’ he said, impudently, ‘that I caught a glimpse of.’ ‘The Lord uncover thy nakedness,’ she cried angrily; ‘cut off thy hands, and make thy wife a widow!’ All which, they say, came to pass. A saucy passage is related between her and the aged Ammâr, whose last words were, as she was leaving, ‘Praise be to the Lord that we shall hear no more that vile tongue of thine!’

Aly’s conduct was forbearing and generous. Of the family with which Ayesha was lodged at Bussorah, two sons had been killed fighting, one on the side of Aly, the other against him. The widow of the latter was loud in her lamentation, crying out against Aly as the cause of her sorrow. Aly was asked to punish her; but he refused, saying she was but a weak woman, and should not be touched. On the other hand, some one who spoke contumeliously of Ayesha was, by his order, beaten with shoes.

As Ayesha was starting for Mecca, Aly and a company gathered round her. When the time came to bid farewell, she said, ‘Let us not entertain hard thoughts one against the other; for verily, as regardeth Aly and myself, there happened not anything between us (alluding to her misadventure in the Prophet’s lifetime[521]) but that which is wont to happen between a wife and her husband’s family; and verily Aly was one of the best of them that entertained suspicions against me.’ Aly replied: ‘She speaketh the truth; there was nought, beyond what she saith, between her and me.’ And then he went on to say (quoting Mahomet’s own words) that ‘she was not only the Prophet’s wife in this world, but equally his spouse in the next.’

[521] _Life of Mahomet_, p. 311.

[522] A separate chapter is generally assigned by the Arabian historians to this episode; but its interest lies almost wholly in the intense hatred conceived by the usurper towards Othmân. Hearing of his factious courses, Othmân, to soften and remind him of his past care and favour, sent him from Medîna a purse, and also a camel laden with rich garments, as a present. The ungrateful rebel hung these up in the Great Mosque of Fostât, and used them to point his invectives against Othmân and the corruption of the age. Having joined the insurgent faction, he, no doubt, hoped that Othmân’s successor would have confirmed him in the government of Egypt. But Aly, treating him as he deserved, showed him no favour, and appointed a man of his own to the government.

[523] I give the narrative as related by concurrent tradition, which I can only question when there is strong internal probability against it. It would, no doubt, have been satisfactory to have had some evidence of Muâvia’s deceptive course of action. It may, however, all be true, for Muâvia was never overscrupulous. But we have no proof excepting _fama clamans_; and court influence under the Abbassides disposed the historians of the day to make the most of every report that was damaging to the character of the Omeyyad dynasty. The reader must, therefore, be cautious of accepting implicitly all these imputations of underhand machination.

[524] Aly’s cousins (sons of Jáfar, the Prophet’s uncle) appear to have encouraged the suspicions against Cays, hoping thus to pave the way for the appointment of Mohammed son of Abu Bekr, who was their uterine brother (Abu Bekr married Jafar’s widow, _Life of Mahomet_, p. 410).

[525] One of his sons is said to have advised Amru to remain in retirement and leave the impending conflict to be settled by those immediately concerned. The other urged that it was not becoming one of his father’s rank and dignity to be neutral. The former, Amru advised (so runs the Abbasside tradition), him the best for his spiritual advantage; the latter for his temporal, and he followed it.

[526] The oath reminds one of a similar vow taken by Hind after the battle of Bedr. (_Life of Mahomet_, p. 246.)

[527] The western detachment, 12,000 strong, was forced by the hostile attitude of Syria hastily to retrace its steps as far as Hît, where they recrossed the river, and then marched north through Mesopotamia. They were so long delayed that Aly, with the main body, reached Ricca first, and, on seeing them come up, naïvely exclaimed, ‘Lo, here is my advanced column in the rear!’

The main body took the Tigris route, perhaps as affording better forage at that dry season of the year.

[528] When the people refused to throw a bridge of boats over the river at Ricca, a detachment moved farther up, intending to cross by the standing bridge at Membaj; but meanwhile Ashtar threatened to put the inhabitants to the sword, and so had a bridge constructed at Ricca. Ricca (Nicephorium) is at the junction of the Belîk with the Euphrates, at which point the Great River, in its upper course, trends westward, and thus approaches Aleppo. _Sûr al Rûm_ (now in ruins) is a little way west of Ricca. It is near Thapsacus of the ancients, on the line of the march of Cyrus.

[529] Freedmen begin to play prominent parts. Aly, on his side, gave a banner to Kinbar, his freedman, and put him in command of a column; and a verse of Amru’s has been preserved in which he pits the one freedman against the other.

[530a] The tendency of tradition, which continues to be cast, as a rule, in an Abbasside mould, is, throughout, to speak disparagingly of Muâvia, and eulogistically of Aly. Thus Aly is represented as sending Sassâa to ask Muâvia’s leave for his army to get water from the river until they had had the opportunity of settling their differences. Amru was for yielding to the request; but Muâvia, counselled by Welîd and Abu Sarh, declined. A skirmish ensued, and the Syrians were beaten from their ground. Then Aly’s people wished to refuse water to the Syrians; but Aly was more generous, and allowed them to take what water they wanted.

Siffîn was to the west of Ricca, about half-way to Balîs (one of Chesney’s steamer stations), opposite the fort of Jabor or Dansa, and about 100 miles from the coast. It lay south-east of Aleppo, and north-east of Hims.]

[530] In the Persian version of Tabari, numbers are said to have been slain every day; but no details nor any names are given, so the casualties could not have been very serious. Blood was not yet inflamed.

It is significant that Aly’s deputations to Muâvia, as well as the commanders of his columns (whose names are given), were almost exclusively Bedouin chiefs; that is to say, there were hardly any of the Coreish or of the citizens of Medîna amongst them, excepting Cays, the ex-Governor of Egypt. Muâvia, on the contrary, had many such around him, as Obeidallah son of Omar, Abdallah son of Khâlid, Habîb ibn Maslama, &c.

[531] Ammâr, the ex-Governor of Kûfa, was son of the bond-woman Sommeya. (See above, p. 268.) Othmân’s freedman was slain in the first onslaught of the conspirators. (_Ibid._ p. 340.) Ammâr’s life was forfeit, they meant to say, for the lesser crime, but much more for the assassination of the Caliph.

[532] Thus the first day Ashtar was in command against Habîb ibn Maslama; then Hâshim ibn Otba (the hero of Câdesîya) against Abul Aûr; on the third day Ammâr against one of Amru’s sons, and so on. After six days the turn came round again to Ashtar and Habîb. But it all reads somewhat too made up.

[533] Mohammed son of Aly was challenged by Obeidallah son of Omar. When Aly saw this, he put spurs to his horse and would have taken his son’s place, whereupon the latter returned to the ranks, saying, ‘Why didst thou not leave me alone, and I should have slain my man? And how couldst thou, my father, offer single combat to such a scoundrel, and the son of one (Omar) who was so inferior to thee?’ ‘Hush!’ said Aly, ‘speak nought of his father but good.’ Many instances are given of brothers and near relatives meeting each other in conflicting ranks, and turning aside from the fight in consequence;--so much was society, even to the domestic circle, rent by the civil war.

[534] _Readers_ or _Reciters_ of the Corân (corâa), those, namely, who, having it by heart, were able to repeat it from beginning to end. They were the most fanatical part of the Moslem forces, answering to the Ghâzies of our own day.

[535] Other versions are given of Ammâr’s last words by the Secretary of Wâckidy, as this: ‘The thirsty man longeth for water; and here, close by, it welleth up. Descend to the spring (death) and drink. This is the joyful day of meeting with friends, with Mahomet and his Companions.’ The various versions all portend the same wild fanatical spirit which influenced the Moslem armies in the first battles against the infidels, and which was now being imported equally into the civil war against their own brethren in the faith.

[536] This curious saying, attributed to the Prophet (the same which alarmed Zobeir at the Battle of the Camel, see p. 363), is thus explained. When Mahomet first arrived in Medîna and began to build the Great Mosque there, his followers all put their shoulders to the work, and began to carry loads of stone, &c. upon their heads. Ammâr was laden with a double burden, and Mahomet, seeing him fatigued, began to blow off the dust from his head, saying kindly to him, ‘Ammâr! a cruel and unjust people will surely slay thee;’ meaning apparently that ‘the people will surely cause thy death by making thee carry such loads.’ Others attribute the saying to the similar occasion when Medîna was besieged, and the citizens dug the great _Ditch_, carrying away the loads of earth. Whatever the occasion, the saying was treasured up, and when the civil war broke out, was accepted, and ever after quoted by their enemies, as conclusive evidence that the Omeyyads were ‘the rebellious people’ foretold by Mahomet.

The idea had taken such hold of the Syrian army that Amru said he was thankful that Dzul Kelâa (the great Himyarite hero who fell fighting on Muâvia’s side) was slain before Ammâr’s death, as otherwise it might have staggered his constancy to the Syrian cause.

The saying itself, and the occasion on which Mahomet gave utterance to it, assume such importance from their bearing on the great dynastic controversy, that the Secretary of Wâckidy devotes several pages to the multitudinous traditions on the subject. The Alyites hold point-blank that ‘the truth _must_ have been with Ammâr, and that it accompanied him on whichever side he fought.’ (_Kâtíb Wâckidi_, fol. 228–230.)

Mahomet is said, also, to have foretold to Ammâr that his last drink would be milk mingled with water; rather a safe prophecy, seeing that it was Ammâr’s favourite beverage.

[537] Abu Mûsa had kept aloof from the battle, but must have been in the neighbourhood. When told of the arbitration, he exclaimed, ‘The Lord be praised, Who hath stayed the fighting!’ ‘But thou art appointed Arbiter on our side.’ ‘Alas! alas!’ he cried; and so, in much trepidation, he repaired to Aly’s camp. Ahnaf ibn Cays asked to be appointed joint-Umpire with Abu Mûsa, who, he said, was not the man to stand alone, nor had he tact and wit enough for the task;--‘There is not a knot which Abu Mûsa can tie, but I will unloose the same; nor a knot he can unloose, but I will find another still harder to unravel.’ This was too true; but the army was in an insolent and perverse mood, and would have none but Abu Mûsa.

[538] An angry passage is given as occurring between Amru and Aly, but it reads like an Abbasside invention. When Amru objected to Aly being named ‘Caliph,’ or ‘Commander of the Faithful,’ in the deed, Aly recalled to those around him the similar occurrence at Hodeibia. He said that when he himself, on that occasion, was reducing the truce to writing, the Coreish objected to Mahomet being styled in it _The Prophet of the Lord_. ‘Well do I remember,’ continued Aly, ‘when the Prophet desired me, at their bidding, to erase the words; and then, when I hesitated, he blotted them out with his own hand, and said to me, “The day will come when thou, too, shalt be called on to make a like concession, and thou shalt agree thereto.” ‘Out upon thee!’ cried Amru; ‘dost thou liken us unto the Pagan Arabs, being good believers?’ ‘And when,’ said Aly, answering indirectly, ‘shall the Wicked not have a head, nor the Faithful an enemy?’ Whereupon Amru swore that he never would sit in company with Aly again; and Aly, on his part, expressed a similar determination. This conversation may possibly have had some foundation in fact, but it is abundantly coloured by Abbasside imagination. For the scene at Hodeibia, see _Life of Mahomet_, p. 372.

[539] Some make the interval arranged for to have been _eight_ months. The ordinary term named by tradition is to Ramadhân or February (A.D. 658), which was seven or eight months from the date of the truce; others name shabân, or january, making the interval six; and this is the commonly received account.

[540] The persian tabari gives the slain on both sides from first to last at 40,000, out of a total force of 130,000 men. making every allowance for exaggeration, the carnage must have been great. the names of only a few ‘companions’ are given; but now these were rapidly disappearing from the scene, as the period of a whole generation had elapsed since the hegira. the chief fighting, moreover, was between the bedouins; those from the north, as a rule, being on aly’s side, and the arabs of the south on that of muâvia. the numbers from mecca and medîna were comparatively small. the prisoners taken on both sides were released. amru is spoken of as having advised to put them to death, but this is altogether unlikely.

[541] See above, p. 226.

[542] Hence the seceders are sometimes called _harôrites_.

[543] dûma, to the extreme north of the peninsula, lies half-way between Irâc and Syria, thus fulfilling the conditions of the truce. some place the scene at adzroh.

Tabari (persian translation) represents abu mûsa as at first appearing unattended, and then, at amru’s suggestion, sending for the stipulated guard. it came under command of the bedouin chief shoreih, who, we are told, carried an insolent message from his master aly to amru, warning him against improper motives. amru resented the imputation, and an altercation ensued. the tradition is from alyite sources; but one can hardly credit aly with so indelicate a proceeding as the attempt by threats to influence his adversary’s umpire. the whole story is in the vein of abbasside abuse, which tramples on the memories of muâvia and amru; and here we may well reject it in the interest of aly himself.

[544] Among those who entertained expectations of the caliphate are named abdallah son of zobeir, the usurper of later days; and mohammed son of talha. opinion varies as to whether mohammed son of abu bekr was a candidate or not. abdallah son of omar was present, but without any pretensions to the caliphate.

[545] He had a beautiful voice, ‘clear and sweet as a flute’ when he recited the corân.

[546] At this point mohammed son of abbâs is represented as interposing with these words: ‘out upon thee, abu mûsa! he hath overreached thee if indeed ye be agreed, and now he putteth thee forward. let him speak first, and thou after him. he is a deceiver; he will make thee speak, then turn round and undo thy words.’ but abu mûsa did not listen. any such interposition, however, is highly improbable. for it could hardly have been foreseen in what particular way amru was about to overreach abu mûsa. moreover the private conversation and agreement in the pavilion between the umpires is itself open to doubt; at any rate, it is deeply coloured by abbasside touches. but we have no other narrative, and must take the story as we find it. and although strange, and, in some of the details, improbable, it must be admitted that the transaction is not inconsistent, as a whole, with the wily character of amru, who made himself notorious for astuteness and ‘sharp practice.’

[547] We do not hear more of abu mûsa, who, however, survived to A.H. 52, or, as others say, to A.H. 42. Some of his grandsons held judicial office.

Many of the angry speeches at Dûma by the chief men, who were bewildered at the strange _dénouement_, have been preserved. These are some of them. _The son of Omar_: ‘See what a pass Islam hath come to! Its great concern committed to two men; one who knoweth not right from wrong, the other a nincompoop.’ _Abu Bekr’s son_: ‘Would that Abu Mûsa had died before this affair; it had been better for him.’ Abu Mûsa himself is represented as abusing Amru in the language of the Corân: ‘His likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if thou drive him away, he putteth forth his tongue; and if thou leave him alone, still he putteth forth his tongue.’ (_Sura_ vii. 77.) ‘And thou,’ retorted Amru, ‘art like the donkey laden with books, and none the wiser for it.’ (_Sura_ vi. 25.) Shureih, commander of the Kûfa escort, flew at Amru, and they belaboured each other with their whips, till they were separated by the people. Shureih exclaimed that he only wished he had used his sword instead. But the tales are mostly of the Abbasside type, and we cannot implicitly receive them.

[548] The imprecation used by Aly has been preserved, as follows: ‘O Lord, I beseech thee, let Muâvia be accursed, and Amru, and Abul Aûr, Habîb, Abdal Rahmân son of (the great) Khâlid, Dhahhâk son of Cays, and Welîd! Let them be accursed all!’ Muâvia’s imprecation, in the same way, included Aly, Ibn Abbâs, Hasan and Hosein (sons of Aly), and Ashtar.

[549] The formula was: _La hukm illa lillâhi_. The political creed of the Separatists was that, Believers being absolutely equal, there should be no Caliph, nor oath of allegiance sworn to any man; but that the government should be in the hands of a Council of State elected by the people. When the loyalists heard this, to counteract the evil, they said, ‘Come, let us swear a second oath of fealty unto Aly, namely, that we shall support all that he supporteth, and oppose all that he opposeth.’ ‘Now truly,’ replied the Separatists, ‘ye are running, ye and the Syrians, neck and neck, in the race of infidelity. They follow Muâvia through thick and thin, and ye swear by Aly black and white.’ ‘Nay,’ replied the loyalists, ‘Aly never held forth his hand to receive the oath, but on condition of following the Book and the Sunnat of the Prophet. It is you that have made us think of this new oath. As for Aly, he is altogether in the right, and whosoever opposeth him is wandering in the paths of error.’ So spake Ziâd the son of Nadhr; but they heeded him not.

[550] Of these, 40,000 were enrolled stipendiaries, 17,000 youths below the ordinary fighting age, and 8,000 slaves. On finding the people indifferent, Aly first induced certain chiefs of influence to lead the way, and then made the heads of every clan and every household furnish the names of their dependants. The backwardness might have been in some measure due to the feeling that the fanatics should first be dealt with as a danger immediately threatening Kûfa. But apart from this, the influence of Aly was weak and precarious. Never enthusiastic on his side, the people were becoming more and more indifferent to him. This was partly owing, no doubt, to the strong feeling against the pretensions of the Coreish that prevailed at Kûfa.

[551] These outrages were of the most barbarous character. For example, a traveller refusing to confess Khârejite tenets was put to death, and his wife, great with child, ripped up with the sword; three women of the Beni Tay were killed, &c.

[552] Only seven men were killed on Aly’s side. The burden of the fanatic cry was that Aly had committed a deadly sin in consenting to refer to human judgment that which appertained alone to the Divine; and that he must repent of his apostasy. Aly replied, that being a true believer he would belie himself if he admitted his apostasy.

Abu Ayûb, as he speared one of the fanatic leaders, cried, ‘I give thee joy of hell fire!’ Aly affirmed the imprecation, thereby implying that in his judgment the fanatics had damned themselves by going out of the pale of Islam and of its covenanted mercies.

[553] This is the meaning of the name: _Khârejite_, one who ‘goes forth,’ rebelling against the government with the demand for a theocracy.

[554] The fact is mentioned _famâ clamante_, and there is no counter evidence. It was, no doubt, of vital importance to Muâvia to be rid of Ashtar; but this may of itself have suggested the report; and in the East, sudden deaths are generally set down to poisoning, a charge easy to make and difficult to disprove. Muâvia, we are told, promised the chief, who was collector of the tithes and revenues at the head of the Red Sea, immunity from taxation for ever after, if he committed the foul deed. But as these histories were all compiled more or less under Abbasside influences, and the evidence is absolutely one-sided, we must be on our guard against the continual abuse and depreciation of the Omeyyad dynasty. The portion of the original Tabari, now in the press may possibly throw light on this and other obscure passages of our history.

[555] According to some he was slain in battle; but the more received story is that he was put to death by an insurgent leader, who was so inveterate against the regicides that he had put his own son to death for being of that party. Notwithstanding that Amru had given Mohammed quarter, this chief, we are told, slew him in cold blood, and having put his body in an ass’s skin, burned it in the flames. Ayesha was inconsolable at her brother’s fate, and (although her politics were all against Aly) she was now led to curse Muâvia and Amru in her daily prayers, and thenceforward ate no roasted meat nor pleasant food until her death.

[556] The incident is significant of the attitude of the Moslems at this period towards Christian captives, which certainly had not softened since the time of Mahomet. On hearing of Mascala’s humanity, the commander of the army said, ‘If I had had any notion that he did this thing out of false pity for the Christians, and thus cast a slight upon Islam, I would, at the risk even of alienating all the Beni Bekr (Mascala’s tribe), have beheaded him on the spot.’ Aly’s remark was: ‘The first act of Mascala (in offering to take upon himself the ransom of the prisoners) was the act of a prince; his second (in avoiding his obligations and going over to Muâvia) the act of a robber and an outlaw.’ So he gave orders for his house to be razed, and all his slaves set free.

From Damascus, Mascala sent a letter to his brother at Kûfa, offering him, on the part of Muâvia, a command and great honour if he would come over to him. The messenger, a Christian of the Beni Tâghlib, was seized and carried before Aly, who ordered his hands to be cut off, so that he died. His brother wrote verses in reply from Kûfa, from which Mascala gathered the concealed meaning, that the messenger had lost his life. Whereupon the Beni Tâghlib received blood-money from Muâvia. The verses have been preserved.

[557] Abu Mûsa, on this occasion, fled from Mecca for his life. The unfortunate man, ever since the Arbitration, was equally obnoxious to both sides.