Was Arabian Idol Worship Declining on the Eve of Islam?∗ The role of idol worship is of crucial importance for the study of Arabia on the eve of Islam. The very existence of the Arabian idols has recently been questioned, but the thorough investigation of the primary sources undertaken here suggests that their existence is beyond doubt.1 A great many idols of various kinds must have been known all over Arabia. Idolatry was perhaps in retreat in other places, but in Arabia it showed no signs of weakening. It may well be impossible to gauge the Arabs’ devotion to their idols, but it stands to reason that their worship formed a major obstacle for Muh.ammad both in Mecca and in Medina. The rejection of idol worship is a permanent element in the accounts of the pre-Islamic h.anı̄f s. Idols also appear in legendary and stereotypical conversion stories of the Prophet’s Companions who lived in various parts of Arabia. I shall argue that the details regarding the idols are reliable since they belong to the background information on which the stories were based. More significantly, in Medina, where the spiritual influence of the dominant Jewish population was considerable, idol worship flourished on every level of tribal organization. If idol worship flourished in Medina, it flourished everywhere, or in any case in the Arabian settlements; there is no indication that the people of Medina were more devoted to their idols than the people of other places. Claims in the primary sources purporting to reflect indifference to idols among the Jāhilı̄ Arabs must be considered apologetic and tendentious. It is widely assumed that on the eve of Islam idol worship in Arabia was in decline and hence did not form a major challenge for Muh.ammad. Nöldeke ascribed the ease with which the Arabs gave up idol worship to the spiritual progress that they had achieved before the rise of Islam.2 Wellhausen argued that the ∗ The following is an extended translation of a lecture delivered at Yad Ben Zvi in Jerusalem, 1999 (Hebrew). 1 G.R. Hawting (see Abbreviations) is of the opinion that the Qur֓anic mushrikūn were not real idolaters but monotheists. See Y. Dutton’s review of Hawting’s recent book in Journal of Islamic Studies, 12,ii (2001), 177–179. 2 “Die Araber hatten bis zum Anfang des 7. Jahrhunderts ausserordentliche geistige Fortschritte gemacht wie nicht leicht ein Volk in so ungünstigen Wohnsitzen. Sie waren ihrer alten Religion entwachsen und liessen diese daher fast ohne Widerstand fallen, als sich ihnen der 2 Arabian Idol Worship Meccans clung to idol worship mainly because they were concerned about their livelihood; conversion was a political rather than a religious matter, yet when a person converted, his pagan tribe stood by him when others fought against him.3 Goldziher approvingly quoted Dozy’s words that “religion, of whatever kind it may have been, generally had little place in the life of the Arabs, who were engrossed in worldly interests like fighting, wine, games and love”.4 Goldziher, basing himself on the testimony of Arabic poetry, had in mind the tribes of central Arabia whose religious concept he contrasted with the religious monuments of South Arabia. Nicholson argued: “Religion had so little influence on the lives of the Pre-islamic Arabs that we cannot expect to find much trace of it in their poetry . . . . Of real piety the ordinary Bedouin knew nothing. He felt no call to pray to his gods, although he often found them convenient to swear by. He might invoke Allah in the hour of need, as a drowning man will clutch at a straw; but his faith in superstitious ceremonies was stronger. He did not take his religion too seriously . . . ”.5 However, Levi Della Vida correctly observed that the poetry and stories of battles from which we draw what we know of the life of the Arabs before Islam are not a true reflection of bedouin life and the verses which attribute religious indifference to the famous warriors should not be trusted.6 Islâm mächtig imponierend darbot. Allderdings, im Vorbeigehn gesagt, vertauschten auch die meisten christlichen Araber ihr Christenthum ohne jedes Bedenken mit dem Islâm, der ihrem Wesen viel besser zusagte”; see Nöldeke’s review of Wellhausen’s Reste arabischen Heidentums (henceforward: Reste) in ZDMG 41 (1887), 707–26, at 720. 3 Reste, 220–21, and passim. Lammens agreed with Wellhausen regarding the weakness of religious feeling; l’Arabie occidentale, 139, 181. Buhl too mentioned in this context the indifference of the business-minded Meccans; Buhl, Leben, 93. Paret did not think that the idols and their indifferent followers who only wanted to cling to their fathers’ beliefs posed a serious challenge for Muh.ammad. He interpreted the passivity of the Arabs when their idols were destroyed at the time of Muh.ammad as follows: “Die altarabischen Glaubensvorstellungen waren schon lange verblaßt, bevor sie endgültig durch den Islam abgelöst wurden”; Paret, Mohammed und der Koran, 18. Paret was surprised that of all places Muh.ammad should have appeared among the businessmen of Mecca; ibid., 23. Stummer argued: “Ja, schon Muhammad traf auf ein Heidentum, dessen geistige Kraft bereits gebrochen und erlahmt war, denn offenbar waren die Einflüsse, die vom Judentum und Christentum auf das vorislamische Arabertum ausstrahlten, nicht unwirksam gewesen”; Stummer, “Bemerkungen zum Götzenbuch des Ibn al-Kalbı̄”, 393–94. Arafat remarks: “. . . [A]ny idea of religion as such was very vague, and the majority of the bedouins, as the Qur֓ān testifies, were finding it difficult to acquire intelligent as well as deep faith. Possible direct benefit played a large part in their belief”; Arafat, “Fact and fiction”, 20. 4 Muslim Studies, I, 12. 5 Nicholson, Literary History, 135. 6 Levi Della Vida, Les sémites et leur role dans l’histoire religieuse, 89–90. He is quoted by Henninger in connection with the common claim regarding the religious indifference of the Bedouins: pre-Islamic poetry is rigid, conventional and limited with regard to its choice of subjects; Henninger, “Pre-Islamic bedouin religion”, 7–8. See also Krone, Die altarabische Gottheit al-Lāt, 176 (poetry fails to provide details on the religious life of the Bedouin because religious themes were not among the motives of the qas.ı̄da). Still, while idols are rarely encountered in poetry, Allāh is mentioned very often, among others by poets who had no link Arabian Idol Worship 1 3 Conversion stories involving idols Idols appear in many autobiographical accounts which are in fact conversion stories, describing the road of certain Companions of Muh.ammad to Islam. In general outline these accounts are often stereotypical and formulaic, but the evidence they contain regarding idols provides background information which by definition is more reliable than the rest of the account. Conversion stories are a fine source of evidence about idol worship because they do not belong to Ibn al-Kalbı̄’s much quoted Kitāb al-as.nām, nor are they part of Islamic heresiography. The stories were usually preserved by the Companions’ descendants and were in fact family traditions. It would be unrealistic to anticipate that the ideological element would be lacking in them, but the details regarding the idol, above all the fact of its existence, form solid evidence and should not be doubted. At some stage the autobiographical accounts found their way into compilations that have a strong ideological framework, namely Dalā ֓il al-nubuwwa or Proofs of Muh.ammad’s Prophethood. But this secondary usage does not detract from their value for the study of Arabian society. Some of the stories about the conversion of pagan Arabs (for example, the accounts about the wufūd or the tribal delegations that visited Muh.ammad) do not contain references to idols. But this does not indicate that some tribes had idols while others did not, or that their idols are intentionally hidden from the reader. Simply, the tribal informants concentrated on other themes, or their original accounts were later curtailed by compilers who found them too long for their purposes. Clearly, the tribesmen conceived of Muh.ammad’s message as an antithesis to idol worship.7 In Islamic historiography the original sources of the reports are often missing because the compilers or copyists omitted them. Luckily, some sources meticulously record the earliest authorities, thereby showing that the reports originated with members of the tribes involved. to Muh.ammad, either because they lived before his time or because they were not influenced by him. This would demonstrate not only that religious elements can be found in pre-Islamic poetry, but also the decline of idol worship; Krone, ibid., 183–86. However, Krone remarks, this “argument from silence” is not decisive: pre-Islamic poetry could easily be “Islamized” and manipulated. Krone realizes that the affair of the “Satanic verses” contradicts the assumption that idol worship at the time of Muh.ammad was in decline (“stark im Niedergang”), and hence unconvincingly interprets it as a political rather than a religious affair; 204–207. Andrae, however, found in Arabia “an undeveloped polytheism, in which a development had just barely begun which would have gradually produced a pantheon consisting of a hierarchy of gods, formed by associating together a number of independent individual divinities”; Andrae, Mohammed , 16–17. 7 The delegation of the Nahd declared: bari ֓nā ilayka yā rasūla llāh mina l-wathan wa-l֒athan; Usd al-ghāba, III, 66 (printed: wa-l-֒anan). ֒Athan is interpreted as a small idol (al.sanam), while wathan means a big one; Lisān al-֒arab, s.v. The Khawlān delegation promised Muh.ammad that upon returning home, they would destroy their idol ֒Umyānis; Goldfeld, “ ֒Umyānis the idol of Khawlān”, 110–11. 4 1.1 Arabian Idol Worship Conversion stories of Qurashı̄s from Mecca Conversion stories concerning Medina will be discussed in the latter part of the study. Let us first turn to Mecca. The conversion stories that demonstrate the multitude of household idols in Mecca are invariably associated with Muh.ammad’s conquest of his hometown. The ideological dimension is not absent: Muh.ammad purified Mecca of the polytheistic cult, precisely as his ancestor Qus.ayy ibn Kilāb had done five generations earlier, when he drove out the corrupt Khuzā֒a. But without the factual underpinning, the ideological claim would have collapsed. Wāqidı̄ adduces several reports about the destruction of household idols. They are no doubt invented and aim at providing their protagonists with Islamic credentials; but the background details figuring in them are trustworthy. One report (< Sa֒ı̄d ibn ֒Amr al-Hudhalı̄) begins with a general statement and provides a specific example. After the conquest of Mecca, Muh.ammad’s announcer proclaimed that those who believed in Allāh and his messenger had to break up every idol (s.anam) in their houses. The Muslims started to break them. Now whenever ֒Ikrima ibn Abı̄ Jahl (of the Makhzūm) heard of an idol in one of the houses of Quraysh, he went there in order to break it up. In the Jāhiliyya, the report goes on, Abū Tijrāt (below, 37) used to make and sell them. At this point Sa֒ı̄d (printed: Sa֒d) ibn ֒Amr al-Hudhalı̄ adds that his informant told him that he had seen Abū Tijrāt manufacturing and selling them. Every Qurashı̄ in Mecca had an idol in his house (wa-lam yakun rajul min Quraysh bi-Makka illā wa-fı̄ baytihi .sanam). According to the following report in Wāqidı̄ (< Jubayr ibn Mut.֒im), the announcer proclaimed that every idol had to be broken up or burnt and that it was forbidden to sell it (wa-thamanuhu h.arām, i.e. to be used as firewood). Jubayr himself had seen the idols being carried around Mecca (i.e., by peddlers); the Bedouin would buy them and take them to their tents (wa-qad kuntu arā qabla dhālika l-as.nām yut.āfu bihā [bi-]Makka fa-yashtarı̄hā ahlu l-badw fa-yakhrujūna bihā ilā buyūtihim). Every Qurashı̄ had an idol at home. He stroked it when he entered and when he left, to draw a blessing from it.8 Wāqidı̄ presents a report (< ֒Abd al-Majı̄d ibn Suhayl) according to which when Hind bint ֒Utba embraced Islam, she started striking an idol in her house with an adze (qadūm), cutting oblong pieces from it (fildha fildha). As she was doing this, she kept saying: “We have been deceived by you” (kunnā minka fı̄ ghurūr).9 Hind’s idol was no doubt made of wood, and she was probably us8 See also Ya֒qūbı̄, Ta ֓rı̄kh, II, 61 (wa-nādā munādı̄ rasūli llāh man kāna fı̄ baytihi .sanam fa-l-yaksirhu fa-kasarū l-as.nām). 9 Wāqidı̄, II, 870–71. See Guillaume, “Stroking an idol”. On the magical power of the mash. see also Krone, Die altarabische Gottheit al-Lāt, 395; Kohlberg, “Vision and the Imams”, 150– 51. Abraham circumcised himself using the same tool; Kister, “ ‘And he was born circumcised’ ”, 10–11 (where it is rendered pick-axe). Arabian Idol Worship 5 ing the tool with which it had been carved. The inventors of the reports about ֒Ikrima and Hind wished to emphasize the zeal of the new converts. Hind was Abū Sufyān’s wife and Mu֒āwiya’s mother, and hence the Umayyad court attempted to elevate her image. A (pseudo-)autobiographical report with a distinctly Umayyad chain of transmitters including the caliphs ֒Umar II, Marwān I and Mu֒āwiya — quoting his mother — elaborates on Hind’s road from idol worship to Islam. The centerpiece of this report is a dream which continues for three nights. On the first night she was in pitch darkness when the Prophet appeared to her in a beam of light. On the second night she was on the road, with the idols Hubal and Isāf calling her on both sides and the Prophet in front of her, showing her the right path. On the third night she found herself on the brink of Gehenna. Hubal called on her to enter while the Prophet seized her by the clothes from behind. In the morning she went to an idol in her house. As she struck it she said: “You have misled me for a long time”! Then she converted to Islam at the Prophet’s hands and pledged her allegiance to him.10 It would be naive to see this as a precise account of historical fact; but we only need the background information which clearly supports the testimony of other reports on the popularity of small household idols in pre-Islamic Mecca. The informants did not invent the setting of these reports: idols were found in every Meccan household.11 1.2 More conversion stories Kalb: ֒Is.ām al-Kalbı̄, the custodian of ֒Amra ֒Is.ām, a Kalbı̄ of the ֒Āmir ibn ֒Awf subdivision, was the custodian of a tribal idol called ֒Amra (read: ֒Amr?). No further details are given about ֒Is.ām, probably because the report was not preserved by one of his descendants but by members of another family. ֒Amr ibn Jabala ibn Wā֓ila al-Kalbı̄ reports that they had an idol (kāna lanā .sanam — the wording suggests that it was a tribal idol) whose custodian (tawallā nuskahu) was called ֒Is.ām. The existence of a custodian again indicates that this was a tribal idol, not a household one. One day they heard a voice from within the idol which announced that idol worship had come to an end, following which ֒Amr and ֒Is.ām went to Muh.ammad and embraced Islam.12 ֒Amr ibn Jabala is 10 Ibn ֒Asākir, LXX, 177 (t.āla mā kuntu minka illā fı̄ ghurūr ). See also Ibn Sa֒d, VIII, 237. Cf. the inferior reading in Is.āba, VIII, 156 (kunnā ma ֒aka fı̄ ghurūr ). Hind and ֒Ikrima’s wife appear at the beginning of the list of Qurashı̄ women who after the conquest of Mecca swore allegiance to Muh.ammad; Ibn ֒Asākir, LXX, 179. 11 Fahd wrongly assumed that the idols in question were made of stone and that ֒Ikrima was their manufacturer; Fahd, Le panthéon, 26–27, 29–30. Cf. Höfner, “Die vorislamischen Religionen Arabiens”, 359: “Die Idole als solche waren Steine” etc. 12 Is.āba, IV, 501 (quoting Khargūshı̄’s Sharaf al-mus..tafā). The entry is entitled “֒Is.ām ibn ֒Āmir al-Kalbı̄” although I could find no support for his father’s name. He was min Banı̄ Fāris(?). ֒Amr’s son, ֒Abd, appears to have played some role here, otherwise there would have been no entry on him in the Is.āba. According to the entry, Wā֓ila’s father was called al-Julāh.; 6 Arabian Idol Worship listed by Ibn al-Kalbı̄ and Abū ֒Ubayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām among those who paid a formal visit to the Prophet (wafada).13 The listing was probably based on ֒Amr’s own report. ֒Amr was the grandfather of one of the most influential figures in Umayyad administration, namely Sa֒ı̄d ibn al-Walı̄d ibn ֒Amr al-Abrash al-Kalbı̄ who was Hishām’s h.ājib.14 In another perhaps more trustworthy pedigree of al-Abrash his grandfather’s name is not ֒Amr but ֒Abd ֒Amr; this may suggest that the idol’s name was in fact ֒Amr rather than ֒Amra.15 A variant of the account on the idol gives the custodian no role. Rather, the voice from within the idol addresses Bakr/֒Abd ֒Amr himself.16 The report was recorded by Ibn al-Kalbı̄ whose informants were al-H . ārith ibn ֒Amr and others. If indeed al-H . ārith ibn ֒Amr directly reported to Ibn al-Kalbı̄, he could not have been the protagonist’s son.17 At all events, by tracing al-Abrash’s pedigree we can identify the ֒Āmir ibn ֒Awf among whom the idol ֒Amra (or ֒Amr) was found: ֒Āmir al-Akbar ibn ֒Awf ibn Bakr ibn ֒Awf ibn ֒Udhra, more precisely ֒Āmir al-Julāh. ibn ֒Awf ibn Bakr ibn ֒Awf ibn ֒Āmir al-Akbar.18 ֒Abd ֒Amr’s brother, al-Nu֒mān, who was a military commander of his tribe, is said to have come to the Prophet with his brother.19 One cannot help suspecting that the influential Abrash strove to secure for his ancestor a place among the Prophet’s Companions. However, the evidence concerning the idol’s existence must be reliable. Is.āba, IV, 387 (printed here Wā֓il instead of Wā֓ila). 13 Is.āba, IV, 613 (again, Wā֓il instead of Wā֓ila; Wā֓il’s father was Qays ibn Bakr; see alAbrash’s pedigree below, where these two appear together with al-Julāh.). Abū ֒Ubayd may have been the compiler of a monograph on wufūd. For a possible quotation from this presumed monograph see Is.āba, I, 456, s.v. Jabala ibn Thawr al-H . anafı̄. 14 Is.āba, IV, 613 (the “ibn” between “Sa֒ı̄d” and “al-Abrash” is superfluous). 15 Ibn al-Kalbı̄, Nasab Ma ֒add , II, 608 (printed Sa֒d instead of Sa֒ı̄d). A longer pedigree of al-Abrash makes him a great-great-grandson of ֒Abd ֒Amr rather than his grandson: Sa֒ı̄d ibn Bakr ibn ֒Abd Qays ibn al-Walı̄d ibn ֒Abd ֒Amr ibn Jabala ibn Wā֓il ibn Qays ibn Bakr ibn al-Julāh. (he is referred to as Hishām’s wazı̄r); Ibn H . azm, Ansāb, 458. But the words “ibn Bakr ibn ֒Abd Qays” are superfluous; he could not have had a grandfather called ֒Abd Qays who lived in the Islamic period. See al-Abrash’s full pedigree in Ibn ֒Asākir, VII, 295. 16 This of course cannot be reconciled with the claim that it was Muh.ammad who changed his name to Bakr. 17 The idol is called here ֒Ayr, var. ֒Amr; Ibn Manda, quoting Ibn al-Kalbı̄, in Is.āba, I, 322. See an entry on Bakr/֒Abd ֒Amr in Ibn Sa֒d, al-T . abaqa al-rābi ֒a, 851–52. Ibn Sa֒d is quoted in Ibn ֒Asākir, VII, 298. In Usd al-ghāba, I, 203 (with reference to the Companion dictionaries of Ibn Manda and Abū Nu֒aym), the idol’s name is ֒.th.r. 18 Ibn al-Kalbı̄, Nasab Ma ֒add , II, 607–608; Caskel, I, no. 289. 19 Is.āba, VI, 441 (where the nisba al-֒Udhrı̄ is misleading). For a reference to al-Nu֒mān as Ibn al-Julāh. see Ibn Durayd, Ishtiqāq, 541. Arabian Idol Worship 7 Juhayna: the former custodian ֒Amr ibn Murra Under wafd Juhayna Ibn Sa֒d quotes two reports, both from Ibn al-Kalbı̄. The former deals with two persons while the latter deals with one and refers to idol worship. Ibn al-Kalbı̄ quotes Khālid ibn Sa֒ı̄d < an unspecified man from the Juhayna, more precisely the Duhmān < his father who was a Companion < ֒Amr ibn Murra: “We had an idol and we used to worship it (nu ֒az..zimuhu). I was its custodian and when I heard about the Prophet I demolished it and set out for the Prophet in Medina”.20 The words “we had an idol” indicate that the idol in question belonged to a tribal group, which is also shown by the existence of a custodian. ֒Amr’s custodianship is not a matter of embarrassment for the tribal informant; on the contrary, it is a source of pride because the shift of the former functionary from idolatry to Islam involved a sacrifice on his part, unlike the conversion of rank and file idol worshippers. ֒Udhra: Ziml ibn ֒Amr and H . umām, is . umām The idol of the ֒Udhra, H ֒ ֒ associated with the conversion to Islam of Ziml ibn Amr al- Udhrı̄. Under wafd ֒Udhra Ibn Sa֒d adduces two reports. The former deals with the wafd as a whole (it included twelve members, four of whom are specified), while the latter, quoted from Ibn al-Kalbı̄ < Sharqı̄ ibn al-Qut.āmı̄ < Mudlij ibn al-Miqdād ibn Ziml ibn ֒Amr, deals only with the informant’s grandfather, Ziml ibn ֒Amr. For part of the report Ibn al-Kalbı̄ relied on another informant, namely Abū Zufar al-Kalbı̄ (possibly quoting the same family isnād). Ziml’s idol is not specified here. Ziml came to the Prophet and informed him about what he had heard from their idol. The Prophet replied: “This is a believer from among the jinn”.21 It was Ziml’s offspring who preserved the report on their ancestor’s idol. Elsewhere we find a report on this matter going back to Abū l-H . ārith Muh.ammad ֓ ibn al-H . ārith ibn Hāni ibn Mudlij ibn al-Miqdād ibn Ziml ibn ֒Amr < his father < his (father’s) father < his (father’s) grandfather < Ziml ibn ֒Amr. From this account, which is more detailed, we learn that the idol belonged to the ֒Udhra (and not to Ziml alone) and that its name was H . umām. More specifically, the idol was among (i.e., belonged to) the Hind ibn H . arām ibn D . inna ibn ֒Abd ibn ֒ Kabı̄r ibn Udhra. It had a custodian called T.āriq and they used to sacrifice sheep (or goats, ya ֒tirūna) near it.22 Ziml himself and some of his offspring had a prominent place in the Umayyad 20 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 333–34; Ibn ֒Asākir, XLVI, 343. ֒Amr abandoned the stone idols (ālihat alah.jār ), according to a verse of his attached to the report. In another report (ibid., 344), the custodian was ֒Amr’s father. 21 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 332. The same report is quoted from Ibn Sa֒d in Ibn ֒Asākir, XIX, 77. This source refers to an account in which Mudlij reports on the authority of his father, and Abū Zufar al-Kalbı̄ is replaced by al-H . ārith ibn ֒Amr ibn Juzayy (perhaps identical with Abū Zufar al-Kalbı̄) < his paternal uncle, ֒Umāra ibn Juzayy. In Is.āba, II, 567, no. 2818, who quotes Ibn Sa֒d, the text is garbled. 22 Ibn ֒Asākir, XI, 489–490. 8 Arabian Idol Worship regime. Ziml received from Mu֒āwiya a court (dār ) in Damascus and for a certain period was in charge of Mu֒āwiya’s shurt.a. He fought on his side in S.iffı̄n, reportedly carrying the banner with which the Prophet had given him authority over his tribe. He was also one of Mu֒āwiya’s witnesses at the Arbitration and was killed at the Battle of Marj Rāhit..23 Under Yazı̄d ibn Mu֒āwiya he had been in charge of the khātam.24 The preservation of Ziml’s story continued for generations among his offspring, regardless of its incorporation into the general literary tradition. Tammām ibn Muh.ammad adduced it in his Fawā ֓id on the authority of Abū l-H . ārith ֓ ֓ Muh.ammad ibn al-H ārith ibn Hāni ibn al-H ārith ibn Hāni ibn Mudlij ibn al. . Miqdād ibn Ziml < his fathers. In Tammām’s book the idol is called Khumām.25 The family story which was probably written down at an early stage coexisted with the literary tradition. Thus Ziml’s grandson Mudlij ibn al-Miqdād transmitted his h.adı̄th to his son, Hāni֓, and to two non-family members: Sharqı̄ ibn al-Qut.āmı̄ and Yazı̄d ibn Sa֒ı̄d al-֒Absı̄.26 Unlike Ziml’s banner which allegedly accompanied him from the time of Muh.ammad to his death at Marj Rāhit., H . umām’s marginal role in the background of the report lends reliability to the fact of the idol’s existence. Hudhayl: Sā֒ida al-Hudhalı̄ and Suwā֒ Ibn Sa֒d quotes the following from Wāqidı̄ < ֒Abdallāh ibn Yazı̄d (ibn Qant.as) al-Hudhalı̄ 27 < ֒Abdallāh ibn Sā֒ida al-Hudhalı̄ < his father. Sā֒ida reports on a voice which he heard from “their idol” Suwā֒. Several Hudhalı̄s including himself were leading two hundred scabby sheep to the idol to ask for its blessing, but a voice calling from the idol’s belly (jawf al-s.anam) announced that the deceit of the jinn was no longer effective: they were shot dead by falling stars because of a prophet called Ah.mad.28 The idol or rather the jinn residing in it or associated with it had a healing power.29 A similar report is quoted by Wāqidı̄ from the same ֒Abdallāh ibn Yazı̄d alHudhalı̄ < Sa֒ı̄d ibn ֒Amr al-Hudhalı̄ < his father. ֒Amr slaughtered upon their 23 Ibn ֒Asākir, XIX, 76–77. Ibn ֒Asākir, XXI, 95. Mudlij ibn al-Miqdād ibn Ziml who was a sharı̄f in Syria was married to Amı̄na bint ֒Abdallāh al-Qasrı̄, Khālid’s sister; Ibn ֒Asākir, LVII, 189 (read al-Qasrı̄ instead of al-Qushayrı̄); Is.āba, II, 568. 25 Ibn ֒Asākir, LII, 245; Is.āba, II, 568. On Tammām ibn Muh.ammad ibn ֒Abdallāh al-Rāzı̄ (d. 414/1023) see GAS , I, 226–27; al-Kattānı̄, al-Risāla al-mustat.rafa, 71. 26 Ibn ֒Asākir, LVII, 189. 27 Ibn ֒Adı̄, D . u ֒afā ֓, IV, 1550. 28 Qad dhahaba kaydu l-jinn wa-rumı̄nā bi-l-shuhub li-nabı̄ smuhu Ah.mad ; Ibn Sa֒d, I, 168. Cf. Ibn Sa֒d, I, 167 (lammā bu ֒itha Muh.ammad .s duh.ira l-jinn wa-rumū bi-l-kawākib, wa-kānū qabla dhālika yastami ֒ūna). Ibn H . ajar who quotes this report from Abū Nu֒aym’s Dalā ֓il al-nubuwwa brands the isnād “weak”; Is.āba, III, 7–8. 29 A shayt.ān called Mis֒ar that used to talk to the people through idols was killed by believing jinns, one of whom was Samh.aj; Abū Nu֒aym, Dalā ֓il , 109–10. The wording hādhā shayt.ān yukallimu l-nās fı̄ l-awthān may suggest that it was not associated with a specific idol. 24 Arabian Idol Worship 9 idol Suwā֒ the first slaughter animal which was a fat cow, and then he and the others heard a voice from within it announcing the appearance of a prophet in Mecca. When the Hudhalı̄s inquired about it in Mecca, only Abū Bakr could confirm the Prophet’s appearance. The Hudhalı̄s refrained from embracing Islam there and then, which they later regretted.30 The entry on ֒Amr ibn Sa֒ı̄d al-Hudhalı̄ in Ibn H . ajar’s Companion dictionary refers to three sources which adduce this report: Abū Nu֒aym’s Companion dictionary, Abū Nu֒aym’s Dalā ֓il al-nubuwwa (where there is a long version) and al-Khargushı̄’s Sharaf al-mus..tafā.31 So instead of Sā֒ida al-Hudhalı̄ it is ֒Amr (or ֒Amr ibn Sa֒ı̄d) al-Hudhalı̄ and instead of sheep a cow. Whatever the case Hudhayl’s association with Suwā֒ remains. Be it Sā֒ida or ֒Amr, we have here a family report mainly interested in establishing a Companion status for the protagonist; the idol belongs to the background. Suwā֒ was in wadi Na֒mān and hence could not have been identical with the other Suwā֒ which was located in wadi Ruhāt.. The latter was worshipped by the Sulaym and the Hudhayl and had a Sulamı̄ custodian (below, 15).32 The former was worshipped by the Kināna, Hudhayl, Muzayna and ֒Amr ibn Qays ֒Aylān. Its custodians were the S.āhila from the Hudhayl.33 Sa֒d ibn Bakr: D . imām ibn Tha֒laba repudiates the idols Under wafd Sa ֒d ibn Bakr Ibn Sa֒d quotes from Wāqidı̄ the story of D . imām ibn Tha֒laba who arrived in Rajab 5 A.H. He returned to his people as a Muslim, having repudiated the idols.34 Wāqidı̄ is the source of the report according to which D . imām came in Rajab 5 A.H., forming the first Arab delegation that came to Muh.ammad.35 While Wāqidı̄ dated his arrival to 5 A.H., Ibn Hishām, quoting Abū ֒Ubayda, 30 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 167–68. Is.āba, IV, 639. 32 Ya֒qūbı̄, Ta ֓rı̄kh, I, 255, mentions the Kināna alone as the owners of Suwā֒, but perhaps the text is garbled. 33 Muh.abbar , 316. In Lecker, The Banū Sulaym, 54, the statement associating Suwā֒ with wadi Na֒mān is presented as a variant report regarding its location; I now realize that there were two Suwā֒s not far from each other, which may have caused some confusion between them. Cf. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry, 119–121 (on p. 121, read S.āhila instead of S.ah.āla). The most prominent member of the S.āhila was the Prophet’s Companion ֒Abdallāh ibn Mas֒ūd. 34 Qad khala ֒a l-andād ; Ibn Sa֒d, I, 299. Muh.ammad ibn H . abı̄b and others dated his arrival to 5 A.H.; Istı̄ ֒āb, II, 752. 35 Wa-kāna awwal man qadima min wafdi l-֒arab; Ibn Bashkuwāl, Ghawāmid., I, 58. The isnād goes back to Muh.ammad ibn Muh.ammad ibn ֒Umar, i.e., Wāqidı̄’s son < his father. For an isnād including Muh.ammad ibn Muh.ammad ibn ֒Umar al-Wāqidı̄ < his father, see e.g. Abū Nu֒aym, Is.bahān, II, 44; al-Khat.ı̄b, Mubhama, 356. For an entry on Wāqidı̄’s son see Ta ֓rı̄kh Baghdād , III, 196–97, s.v. Muh.ammad ibn al-Wāqidı̄ (he transmitted from his father, among other books, the latter’s Kitāb al-ta ֓rı̄kh). 31 10 Arabian Idol Worship 36 dated it to 9 A.H. Ibn H . ajar, probably correctly, preferred the later date. D . imām began the report to his people on his visit to Muh.ammad by cursing Allāt and al-֒Uzzā, and his shocked audience warned him of leprosy, elephantiasis and madness.37 Indeed, these two idols, located in T.ā֓if and Nakhla respectively, were not far from the territory of the Sa֒d ibn Bakr. Several versions of D . imām’s story enjoy a high profile in Islamic literature where it is used in connection with certain legal questions. Hence it is accompanied by respectable isnād s rather than obscure tribal authorities. ֒Uqayl: Abū H . arb ibn Khuwaylid al-֒Uqaylı̄ remains pagan Among the ֒Uqaylı̄s mentioned in Ibn Sa֒d under the title wafd ֒Uqayl ibn Ka ֒b there was one who remained pagan, namely Abū H . arb ibn Khuwaylid ibn ֒Āmir ibn ֒Uqayl. He cast lots with arrows (wa-d.araba bi-l-qidāh.) in order to decide between Islam and his own religion (dı̄n), and after the arrow of disbelief had come up three times, he did not convert.38 Ibn Sa֒d quotes the two reports on wafd ֒Uqayl ibn Ka ֒b including this one from Ibn al-Kalbı̄ < a man of the ֒Uqayl < their elders (ashyākh qawmihi). Abū H . arb’s attitude as described in this account would not make him eligible for Companion status; yet Ibn H . ajar includes him in the first category of Companions, i.e. among those whose Companion status is mentioned in a h.adı̄th of any level of reliability, or is proven otherwise.39 This prominent warrior of the ֒Uqayl is evidently mocked with regard to his misguided attempt at divination; but there can be no doubt that the religion he chose to cling to was idolatry. Thaqı̄f and Allāt The idol Allāt was a central theme in the negotiations between Muh.ammad and the Thaqı̄f delegation that came to Medina in Ramad.ān 9 A.H. Ibn Sa֒d’s report on wafd Thaqı̄f contains only this laconic reference: “They asked to be exempted from having to demolish Allāt and al-֒Uzzā [sic] by themselves, to which he [the Prophet] assented. Al-Mughı̄ra ibn Shu֒ba said: ‘And I was the one who demolished it’ ”.40 His comment refers to Allāt. Indeed 36 Is.āba, III, 487. Note that in the report on D . imām in Ibn Hishām, IV, 219–21, there is no mention of Abū ֒Ubayda or the date of D . imām’s arrival. Wāqidı̄ dated his arrival to the year of the Khandaq, after the departure of the ah.zāb; a third source dated his arrival to 7 A.H.; Qurt.ubı̄, Tafsı̄r , IV, 144. Either D . imām or Bilāl ibn al-H . ārith al-Muzanı̄ formed the first wafd that came to Muh.ammad; Ibn ֒Abd al-Barr, Tamhı̄d , XVI, 167. 37 Ibn Hishām, IV, 220; Ibn Shabba, II, 521–23; T . abarı̄, I, 1722–24. 38 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 302. Contrast the famous story of Imru֓ al-Qays’s breaking of the arrows of Dhū l-Khalas.a in Tabāla. His forceful action is thought to have put an end to the practice of istiqsām there; e.g. Ibn ֒Asākir, IX, 239 (fa-lam yustaqsam ֒inda Dhı̄ l-Khalas.a h.attā jā ֓a llāh bi-l-islām). 39 Is.āba, VII, 88; Ibn al-Kalbı̄, Jamharat al-nasab, 334. Abū H . arb demanded that his tribe be exempted from ֒ushr and h.ashr ; see on these terms Lecker, “Were customs dues levied at the time of the Prophet Muh.ammad?”, 32–38 = no. VII in this volume. 40 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 313. Arabian Idol Worship 11 besides exemption from having to destroy their idols (plural) themselves they asked to keep Allāt for one year, but Muh.ammad rejected the latter demand. Muh.ammad’s reply mentions al-t.āghiya which is glossed as Allāt and al-֒Uzzā;41 the mention of al-֒Uzzā in this context is superfluous and wrong.42 It is reported that after the conclusion of the treaty the Thaqı̄f asked to keep Allāt for three years, and they kept on haggling until they came down to a respite of one month after their return to T.ā֓if. But Muh.ammad would not give them a postponement for a definite period.43 The core report in the relatively long chapter on wafd Thaqı̄f in Ibn Shabba is from Mūsā ibn ֒Uqba < Zuhrı̄. One assumes that Zuhrı̄ based it on reports from Thaqafı̄ informants. Thaqı̄f’s idol is called here al-Rabba. The Thaqı̄f feared that if it knew they were hastening to destroy it, it would kill their families. This fear was voiced by the delegation head, ֒Abd Yālı̄l, and ֒Umar ibn al-Khat.t.āb replied that it was merely a stone which could not tell those who worshipped it from those who did not. When the delegation returned from Medina, its members visited Allāt before going to their homes. It was a sanctuary in the middle of T.ā֓if which was veiled and received gifts of slaughter camels. They (i.e., the Thaqı̄f) made it similar to the Ka֒ba and worshipped it (bayt kāna bayna .zahrayi l-T . ā ֓if yustaru wa-yuhdā lahā [sic] l-hady, d.āhaw bihi bayta llāh wa-kānū ya ֒budūnahā). The Thaqafı̄s did not believe that Allāt could be demolished and Mughı̄ra ibn Shu֒ba mocked them by pretending to have been struck by the idol upon his first blow. He then smashed the door and with the help of others levelled the sanctuary. Yet 41 Kister, “Some reports concerning al-T . ā֓if”, 4=Baghawı̄, Tafsı̄r , IV, 140. Kister discussed the economic factor behind their demand, namely Thaqı̄f’s revenues from pilgrims; ibid., 4– 5=Qurt.ubı̄, Tafsı̄r , X, 299. Note however that the report speaks of idols (plural) and does not specifically mention Allāt (matti ֒nā bi-ālihatinā sana h.attā na ֓khudha mā yuhdā ilayhā faidhā akhadhnāhu kasarnāhā wa-aslamnā). Muqātil ibn Sulaymān’s commentary, with regard to Qur֓ān 17,73, also includes Allāt and al-֒Uzzā in Thaqı̄f’s demand; however, when they repeated it following the Prophet’s hesitation, they only cited Allāt (wa-an tumatti ֒anā bi֓llāt wa-l-֒Uzzā sana wa-lā naksirahā [sing.] bi-aydı̄nā min ghayr an na ֒budahā li-ya ֒rifa l-nās karāmatanā ֒alayka wa-fad.lanā ֒alayhim . . . fa-qālū tumatti ֒unā bi-֓llāt sana). The cunning Thaqafı̄s advised Muh.ammad what he should tell the other Arabs should they reprove him with regard to Thaqı̄f’s prerogative (wa-in kāna bika malāmatu l-֒arab fı̄ kasr as.nāmihim watark as.nāminā fa-qul lahum inna rabbı̄ amaranı̄ an uqirra llāt bi-ard.ihim sana); Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, Tafsı̄r , I, 217b–18a; Kister, “Some reports concerning al-T . ā֓if”, 6–7. Muqātil does not mention his source for this report, but he could have taken it from his contemporary Kalbı̄; an abridged version of the same report in Ibn Shabba, II, 510–11, goes back to Kalbı̄. The wording of Thaqı̄f’s advice here is slightly different (tumatti ֒unā bi-֓llāt sana, fa-in khashı̄ta lā ֓imata l-֒arab fa-quli llāh [!] amaranı̄ rabbı̄ bi-dhālika). Kalbı̄’s report as found in Ibn Shabba was transmitted by H . ammād ibn Salama; cf. an isnād in which H . ammād quotes Kalbı̄ in T.abarānı̄, al-Mu ֒jam al-kabı̄r , XXIII, 163. Since Kalbı̄’s report specifically refers to Qur֓ān 17,73, it stands to reason that it is from Kalbı̄’s Tafsı̄r . 42 Cf. also Ibn Hishām, IV, 187: Abū Sufyān and al-Mughı̄ra ibn Shu֒ba are sent ilā hadmi l-t.āghiya; in Is.āba, V, 403, the name al-֒Uzzā was erroneously added: li-hadmi l-֒Uzzā l-t.āghiya. 43 Ibn Hishām, IV, 184–85; Wāqidı̄, III, 968. 12 Arabian Idol Worship the .sāh.ib al-mafātı̄h. (i.e., the custodian)44 thought that the foundation would be provoked and the aggressors would be swallowed up (la-yaghd.abanna l-asās wa-la-yukhsafanna bihim), so the foundation was dug up and the idol’s jewels and covers (thiyāb) were taken out.45 These details about Allāt are taken from Zuhrı̄’s report.46 The factual background of Mughı̄ra’s mock death at the hands of Allāt is the shock and bewilderment among the superstitious Thaqı̄f. Most Thaqafı̄s, it is reported, did not believe that the idol was going to be demolished and considered it invulnerable.47 Beforehand, an old Thaqafı̄ who still had a residue of idolatry in his heart declared the demolition of Allāt a touch-stone. A fellow Thaqafı̄, ֒Uthmān ibn Abı̄ l-֒Ās., replied that just like Allāt, al-֒Uzzā could not tell those who worshipped it from those who did not; Khālid ibn al-Walı̄d destroyed it single-handedly. Also Isāf, Nā֓ila, Hubal, Manāt and Suwā֒ were each destroyed by one person.48 Allāt’s treasury included funds (māl ) in gold and onyx in addition to jewels.49 When the custodian expected the foundation to be provoked, Mughı̄ra dug it up, reaching half a man’s height. He reached the Ghabghab which is Allāt’s treasury and they took out its jewels and cover, in addition to the perfume, gold or silver found there.50 We have further evidence regarding the treasury. Muh.ammad paid out from māl al-t.āghiya or h.uliyy l-Rabba a debt of two hundred mithqāl of gold left by the murdered ֒Urwa ibn Mas֒ūd al-Thaqafı̄. He did this at the request of ֒Urwa’s son, Abū Mulayh.. He also paid a debt of the same amount left by the former’s brother, al-Aswad ibn Mas֒ūd, at the request of the latter’s son, Qārib.51 There were also other unspecified beneficiaries; part of the treasure was spent on weapons for the Jihād.52 The Ka֒ba too had a treasury (māl al-Ka ֒ba), also referred to as khizānat alKa ֒ba. The khizānat al-Ka ֒ba was in the court (dār ) of Shayba ibn ֒Uthmān, as 44 Wāqidı̄, III, 972, has sādin. Ibn Shabba, II, 499–515; Zuhrı̄’s report, 501–507. The passage on al-Rabba, 503–504, is garbled (law ta ֒lami l-Rabba annaka turı̄du hadmahā qatalat ahlı̄nā). Read as in Wāqidı̄, III, 967 (law ta ֒lami l-Rabba annā awd.a ֒nā fı̄ hadmihā qatalat ahlanā). 46 The custom of visiting the idol upon returning from a journey is also mentioned elsewhere. Having embraced Islam, ֒Urwa ibn Mas֒ūd returned home without first visiting al-Rabba, which the Thaqafı̄s found unusual; Wāqidı̄, III, 960. They became suspicious when he did not approach Allāt and did not shave his head near it; ibid., 961. 47 Lā tarā ֒āmmat Thaqı̄f annahā mahdūma wa-yaz.unnūna annahā mumtani ֒a; Ibn Shabba, II, 506. 48 Wāqidı̄, III, 970–71. 49 Ibn Hishām, IV, 186. 50 . . . Balagha nis.f qāma wa-֓ntahā ilā l-Ghabghab khizānatihā wa-֓ntaza ֒ū h.ilyatahā wakuswatahā wa-mā fı̄hā min .tı̄b wa-min dhahab aw fid.d.a; Wāqidı̄, III, 972. 51 Ibn Hishām, IV, 187; Wāqidı̄, III, 971; Ibn Sa֒d, V, 504–505. 52 Wāqidı̄, III, 972 (wa-a ֒.tā . . . Abā Mulayh. wa-Qāriban wa-nāsan wa-ja ֒ala fı̄ sabı̄li llāh wa-fı̄ l-silāh. minhā). 45 Arabian Idol Worship 13 we learn for example from the evidence on Ibn al-Zubayr’s works in the Ka֒ba.53 The Prophet is supposed to have found seventy thousand ounces of gold in the pit (jubb) which was in the Ka֒ba. Against ֒Alı̄’s advice to use this for his war expenses Muh.ammad decided not to touch it and Abū Bakr followed his example.54 Elsewhere there are conflicting reports about the fate of the treasure after Muh.ammad’s conquest of Mecca.55 Reportedly ֒Umar too did not touch it. The Ka֒ba’s custodian at the time of Muh.ammad, Shayba ibn ֒Uthmān, who lived to the end of Mu֒āwiya’s caliphate, is quoted as protecting this institution. A man who donated money to the Ka֒ba told him that had it been from his own money he would not have donated it. Shayba is supposed to have told him that ֒Umar ibn al-Khat.t.āb took an oath to distribute the treasure, but changed his mind because Shayba convinced him not to do so. He told ֒Umar that the Prophet and Abū Bakr who were more in need of it than ֒Umar had not touched it.56 The Ka֒ba’s treasury also served as a safe place for the storing of important documents. When caliph ֒Umar II turned a court he owned in Mecca into a charitable endowment for the housing of pilgrims, he deposited the document in the treasury and instructed the custodians to look after the court.57 In short, the abolition of Allāt and the plundering of its treasury deprived the Thaqafı̄s of a central financial institution which may well have functioned as a bank, providing loans and guarantees. The Islamization of the Ka֒ba made it possible for the Qurashı̄s in the rival town of Mecca to preserve their rival institution. The tribal aspect is not absent from the reports about Allāt. The Thaqı̄f were divided into two rival subdivisions, the Ah.lāf or the allies, and the Mālik. In the battle of H . unayn and during the siege of T.ā֓if by the Muslims, Qārib ibn al-Aswad carried the banner of the Ah.lāf.58 There are two versions regarding the person who murdered ֒Urwa ibn Mas֒ūd: he was either of his own clan, the Ah.lāf, or of the Mālik; Wāqidı̄ preferred the latter version.59 Mughı̄ra belonged to the Ah.lāf: those members of the Thaqı̄f delegation that visited the Prophet who were of the Ah.lāf lodged with him.60 When Mughı̄ra 53 Azraqı̄, I, 207. See also ibid., II, 253 (Shayba’s court in which the Ka֒ba’s treasury was located was near Dār al-Nadwa and had a gate connecting it to the Ka֒ba). 54 Azraqı̄, I, 246–47. 55 Ya֒qūbı̄, Ta ֓rı̄kh, II, 61 (wa-rawā ba ֒d.uhum anna rasūla llāh qasama mā kāna fı̄ l-Ka ֒ba mina l-māl bayna l-muslimı̄na wa-qāla ākharūna aqarrahu). 56 Ibn ֒Asākir, XXIII, 259–60 (qad ra ֓ayā makānahu fa-lam yuh.arrikāhu wa-humā ah.waju ilā l-māl minka); cf. Azraqı̄, I, 245–46. The Jurhum unjustly took from the money donated to the Ka֒ba; T . abarı̄, I, 1131 (wa-akalū māla l-Ka ֒ba lladhı̄ yuhdā ilayhā). 57 Azraqı̄, II, 241. 58 Is.āba, V, 403. 59 Wāqidı̄, III, 961. 60 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 313. Mughı̄ra’s court in the Baqı̄֒ was granted to him by the Prophet (khit..ta khat..tahā al-nabı̄ .s lahu); Wāqidı̄, III, 965. The usage of the term khit..ta with regard to Medina is unusual. Cf. EI 2 , s.v. Khit..ta, where it is defined as a “piece of land marked out for building 14 Arabian Idol Worship demolished Allāt, he was sheltered by his clan, the Banū Mu֒attib.61 Mu֒attib was Mughı̄ra’s great-great-grandfather, as can be seen from the latter’s pedigree: Mughı̄ra ibn Shu֒ba ibn Abı̄ ֒Āmir ibn Mas֒ūd ibn Mu֒attib.62 Mu֒attib was also the great-grandfather of two of the three Ah.lāf representatives in the Thaqı̄f delegation, al-H . akam ibn ֒Amr ibn Wahb ibn Mu֒attib and Shurah.bı̄l ibn Ghaylān ibn Salama ibn Mu֒attib. The delegation head, ֒Abd Yālı̄l, was from another branch of the Ah.lāf. Incidentally, the Prophet chose to appoint as the governor of T.ā֓if the youngest member of the delegation, the above mentioned ֒Uthmān ibn Abı̄ l-֒Ās. who was of the Mālik. For good measure, Muh.ammad’s tax collector was of the Ah.lāf. More precisely, he was yet another great-grandson of Mu֒attib, Sālif ibn ֒Uthmān ibn ֒Āmir ibn Mu֒attib.63 The custodians of Allāt were of the Ah.lāf. They were the Banū l-֒Ajlān ibn ֒Attāb ibn Mālik ibn Ka֒b; ֒Attāb may have been the first custodian.64 Another source takes us one or two generations later by reporting that the custodians were the Banū Shubayl ibn al-֒Ajlān. One of them is specified, namely Munabbih ibn Shubayl.65 Surprisingly, there is yet another claim regarding the identity of the custodians. The family (āl ) of Abū l-֒Ās. of the Mālik (more precisely the Yasār ibn Mālik) were reportedly Allāt’s custodians.66 The rich evidence about the complicated negotiations with the Thaqı̄f delegation and the demolition of Allāt’s sanctuary point to the idol’s central role both economically and spiritually. Thaqı̄f’s request to be exempted from having to destroy it with their own hands can only be attributed to their deep emotional attachment to it, or at least to their superstitious belief in its power to cause mischief. upon”, a term used of the lands allotted to tribal groups and individuals in the garrison cities founded by the Arabs at the time of the conquests. Also the cousins Abū Mulayh. ibn ֒Urwa and Qārib ibn al-Aswad lodged with him; Wāqidı̄, III, 962. 61 Ibn Hishām, IV, 186; Wāqidı̄, III, 971–72. 62 Ibn al-Kalbı̄, Jamharat al-nasab, 387. The Thaqafı̄s murdered by Mughı̄ra before he embraced Islam were of the Mālik; Wāqidı̄, III, 964–65. 63 Wāqidı̄, III, 963; Kister, “Some reports concerning al-T . ā֓if”, 11; Is.āba, III, 8. 64 Wa-s.āh.ibuhā minhum ֒Attāb . . . thumma banūhu ba ֒dahu; Wāqidı̄, III, 972. Wellhausen thought that Mu֒attib and ֒Attāb were the same, but this is not the case; Reste, 31; Caskel, I, no. 118. See also Krone, Die altarabische Gottheit al-Lāt, 427–29. 65 Ibn al-Kalbı̄, Jamharat al-nasab, 388. 66 Muh.abbar , 315. For Abū l-֒Ās.’s pedigree see Ibn H . azm, Ansāb, 266. The family in question played a significant role in Islam. The above mentioned ֒Uthmān ibn Abı̄ l-֒Ās. was the son of an Umayyad woman and at one time had an Umayyad wife. After officiating as Muh.ammad’s governor in T . ā֓if, he had a prominent career. Muh.ammad instructed him to locate the mosque ֓ of T ā if at the former place of the idols (h.aythu kānat .tawāghı̄tuhum); Qurt.ubı̄, Tafsı̄r , VIII, . 255. The left minaret of the T . ā֓if mosque was later built on the site of Allāt; Qurt.ubı̄, Tafsı̄r , XVII, 99. Arabian Idol Worship 15 Sulaym: Rāshid ibn ֒Abd Rabbihi and Suwā֒ Under wafd Sulaym Ibn Sa֒d has three reports, the second of which deals with the former custodian of an idol belonging to the Sulaym, Rāshid ibn ֒Abd Rabbihi. His pagan name, Ghāwı̄ ibn ֒Abd al-֒Uzzā, was Islamized by the Prophet. Rāshid became convinced of the fallacy of idol worship when he saw two foxes urinating on the idol, following which he smashed it and came to the Prophet. The latter gave him a place called Ruhāt. in which was a well called ֒Ayn al-Rasūl.67 Whether or not we accept the background to Rāshid’s conversion, it clearly meant the repudiation of idol worship, probably depriving him of his livelihood. Ibn Sa֒d does not specify his source of information regarding Rāshid, but the style is reminiscent of other reports of the same type. A family tradition which goes back to Rāshid (no doubt via his offspring) is preserved. It was paraphrased by Samhūdı̄, but even in the abridged form it provides illuminating evidence. Rāshid’s report twice includes the expression al-Ma ֒lāt min Ruhāt., or the upper part of wadi Ruhāt.: it was the location of the idol Suwā֒ worshipped by the Hudhayl and the Banū Z.afar of Sulaym, and it defined the Prophet’s grant of land to Rāshid. In other words, Rāshid received the site of the idol. The spring miraculously created by the Prophet’s blessing is called here Mā֓ al-Rasūl. Rāshid’s custodianship is only alluded to: he heard a mysterious voice (hātif ) from Suwā֒’s belly and from other idols announcing Muh.ammad’s prophethood. He also saw two foxes licking the ground around the idol, eating the gifts brought to it and then urinating on it.68 Ibn H . ajar’s Companion dictionary has an entry on Rāshid which as usual includes passages from earlier Companion dictionaries, among them Abū Nu֒aym’s.69 In his turn Abū Nu֒aym quotes Ibn Zabāla’s lost book on the history of Medina which was one of Samhūdı̄’s main sources. Ibn Zabāla has a quotation from none other than Rāshid’s grandson (or great-grandson), H . akı̄m ibn ֒At.ā֓ al-Sulamı̄. He identified the idol as Suwā֒ and gave its location as al-Ma֒lāt.70 A slightly longer quotation from Abū Nu֒aym occurs elsewhere. In it we find that Suwā֒ was bi-l-ma ֒lāt min Ruhāt..71 The place name al-Ma֒lāt links us directly to Rāshid’s paraphrased report in Samhūdı̄, and hence we may conclude that Samhūdı̄ probably copied it from Ibn Zabāla’s book. Another passage in Ibn H . ajar is from Ibn H . ibbān al-Bustı̄’s Companion dictionary. According to this account, Rāshid’s former name — it is said here to have been Ghāwı̄ ibn Z.ālim — was replaced by the Prophet with the name Rāshid ibn ֒Abdallāh. In this report, one of the foxes which approached the idol raised its leg and urinated on it. These differences are immaterial and what we have 67 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 307–308. Samhūdı̄, IV, 1225; Lecker, Sulaym, 52–59, with further discussion. 69 Abū Nu֒aym, S.ah.āba, only has the entries to, and including, the letter thā ֓. 70 Kāna l-s.anamu lladhı̄ yuqālu lahu Suwā ֒ [printed: Suwa ֒] bi-l-Ma ֒lāt, fa-dhakara qis..sat islāmihi wa-kasrihi iyyāhu; Is.āba, II, 434. 71 Suyūt.ı̄, Khas.ā ֓is., II, 193. 68 16 Arabian Idol Worship here are versions of the story of Rāshid’s conversion.72 Rāshid’s offspring transmitted yet another report about their father. The Manāsik has the following isnād : Abū Muh.ammad al-Warrāq, i.e., ֒Abdallāh ibn Abı̄ Sa֒d al-Warrāq73 < Yah.yā ibn ֒Abd al-Malik ibn Ismā֒ı̄l al-Sulamı̄ < Numayr ibn Muh.ammad ibn ֒Uqayl al-Z.afarı̄ (the nisba refers to the Z.afar subdivision of Sulaym mentioned above among the worshippers of Suwā֒) < his grandfather (or great-grandfather), who informed him that their father Rāshid ibn Rāshid, formerly known as Z.ālim ibn Ghāwı̄, was with the Prophet in a wadi called Ruhāt.. The latter granted him a spring which he had miraculously created, together with the declivity in which it ran. When the report was recorded the place still belonged to Rāshid’s offspring.74 The spring mentioned above as ֒Ayn al-Rasūl and Mā֓ al-Rasūl is evidently identical to ֒Ayn al-Nabı̄.75 While there is no mention of Rāshid’s former career, the mention of Ruhāt. shows that Rāshid ibn Rāshid is in fact Rāshid the former custodian, and thus we have here other descendants who preserved a report about him. There is a certain discrepancy between the known pedigree of Rāshid and that of his offspring: the informant who was Rāshid’s descendant was of the Z.afar ibn al-H . ārith ibn Buhtha ibn Sulaym, while Rāshid’s pedigree indicates that he was of the Ka֒b ibn al-H . ārith ibn Buhtha ibn Sulaym. But in another report Rāshid is referred to as “a man of the Z.afar, of Sulaym”.76 It seems that at a certain point the distinction between the brother clans Z.afar and Ka֒b disappeared, or a genealogical shift took place.77 Five general remarks may be made here. First, Rāshid’s custodianship was not concealed and his offspring were not ashamed of it. On the contrary, the more Rāshid was implicated in idol worship, the greater his sacrifice. Second, the former territory of the idol became venerated family property. Third, it appears that Muh.ammad merely recognized Rāshid’s right to the land rather than granted it to him. Perhaps custodians owned the grounds on which the idols stood; they may have even owned the idols themselves. Fourth, assuming that the place had had plenty of water even before it enjoyed the Prophet’s blessing, we have here an 72 Is.āba, II, 434–35. Ibn H . ibbān’s book quoted here is probably Asmā ֓ al-s.ah.āba, on which see ֒ GAS , I, 191. Istı̄ āb, II, 504, provides us with a kunya: Rāshid ibn ֒Abdallāh Abū Uthayla; his former name was Z.ālim or, according to another version Ghāwı̄ ibn Z.ālim, which the Prophet replaced with the name Rāshid ibn ֒Abdallāh. Ibn H . ibbān, Ta ֓rı̄kh al-s.ah.āba, 100, calls him Rāshid ibn H . afs. al-Sulamı̄ Abū Uthayla; he was of the people of H . ijāz and the Prophet replaced his former name Z.ālim with the name Rāshid. 73 Manāsik , 124–25. 74 Manāsik , 350. 75 Manāsik , 349. The unspecified Z.afarı̄ mentioned here is no doubt Rāshid. He asked the Prophet an yasqiyahu bi-Ruhāt. ֒aynan, i.e., that he grant him a spring in Ruhāt.. This is parallel to Rāshid’s request that the Prophet grant him a qat.ı̄ ֒a in Ruhāt.; Suyūt.ı̄, Khas.ā ֓is., II, 194. 76 Manāsik , 349. 77 Lecker, Sulaym, 59. Zuhrı̄ (< ֒Urwa < ֒Ā֓isha) reported that when the Prophet appointed Abū Sufyān as the governor of Najrān, he sent with him Rāshid ibn ֒Abdallāh; Dāraqut.nı̄, Sunan, IV, 16. Arabian Idol Worship 17 association between idol worship and a source of water also known from elsewhere. Fifth, one does not have to accept the mysterious voice and the urinating foxes as historical facts in order to establish the idol’s existence.78 Hamdān: al-֒Awwām and Yaghūth Al-֒Awwām ibn Juhayl al-Hamdānı̄ was the custodian of Yaghūth, as shown by the story of his conversion to Islam. The autobiographical story goes back to al-֒Awwām himself (kāna l-֒Awwām yuh.addithu ba ֒da islāmihi).79 He slept at the idol’s sanctuary (bayt al-s.anam), and following a stormy night he heard a mysterious voice (hātif ) announcing the end of idolatry. Al-֒Awwām set out for Medina and arrived on time to see the Hamdān delegation surrounding the Prophet.80 Sa֒d al-֒Ashı̄ra: Dhubāb and Farrās. An idol called Farrās.81 appears in the story of wafd Sa ֒d al-֒Ashı̄ra. Ibn al-Kalbı̄ (< Abū Kubrān al-Murādı̄ < Yah.yā ibn Hāni֓ ibn ֒Urwa < ֒Abd al-Rah.mān ibn Abı̄ Sabra al-Ju֒fı̄) quotes a report on the visit of Dhubāb, a man of the Anas Allāh ibn Sa֒d al-֒Ashı̄ra, to the Prophet. When Dhubāb and his fellow tribesmen heard about the appearance (khurūj ) of the Prophet, Dhubāb came to him after having smashed the idol Farrās..82 Ibn al-Kalbı̄’s immediate source was Abū Kubrān al-H . asan ibn ֒Uqba al-Murādı̄. A report on Farwa ibn Musayk al-Murādı̄’s visit to the Prophet is also accompanied by the isnād Ibn al-Kalbı̄ < Abū Kubrān al-Murādı̄ < Yah.yā ibn Hāni֓ al-Murādı̄.83 It was only natural that Murādı̄s should concern themselves with the history of fellow Murādı̄s, especially when it was associated with the first contact between the Prophet and one of themselves. Farwa and Yah.yā were of the same subdivision of the Murād, namely the Ghut.ayf.84 Abū Kubrān was also one of Sayf ibn ֒Umar’s sources.85 As to ֒Abd al-Rah.mān ibn Abı̄ Sabra al-Ju֒fı̄, one has to recall that Ju֒fı̄ is a branch of the Sa֒d al-֒Ashı̄ra. Moreover, the Anas Allāh ibn Sa֒d al-֒Ashı̄ra were incorporated into Ju֒fı̄.86 A version of Ibn al-Kalbı̄’s report which is fuller than the one found in Ibn Sa֒d appears in Ibn Shāhı̄n’s Companion dictionary. There Ibn al-Kalbı̄’s informant is 78 For other anecdotes involving urine cf. Robinson, Islamic Historiography, 173–74. Following the example of similar stories one assumes that the report was preserved by al-֒Awwām’s offspring. 80 Is.āba, IV, 736–37, quoting Ibn al-Kalbı̄. Ibn H . ajar quotes Ibn al-Kalbı̄’s report from an unspecified treatise of Abū Ah.mad al-֒Askarı̄ who in turn quotes Ibn Durayd’s al-Akhbār almanthūra. In Usd al-ghāba, IV, 153, who similarly quotes Abū Ah.mad al-֒Askarı̄, we find that Ibn Durayd quotes al-Sakan ibn Sa֒ı̄d < Muh.ammad ibn ֒Abbād < Ibn al-Kalbı̄. 81 Reste, 67; Nas.r, Amkina, 118a. 82 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 342 (printed: Farrād.). 83 Is.āba, VI, 713. 84 Ibn H . azm, Ansāb, 406. 85 Ibn ֒Asākir, LXIII, 246. 86 Ibn H . azm, Ansāb, 407 (dakhalū fı̄ akhı̄him Ju ֒fı̄). For an entry on ֒Abd al-Rah.mān see Is.āba, IV, 308. For an entry on Abū Sabra Yazı̄d ibn Mālik al-Ju֒fı̄ see Istı̄ ֒āb, IV, 1667. 79 18 Arabian Idol Worship not Abū Kubrān al-H . asan ibn ֒Uqba but, probably due to a misprint, al-H . asan ibn Kathı̄r. Sa֒d al-֒Ashı̄ra’s idol is called Qarrās. (the fā ֓ and the qāf being differentiated only by a diacritical point) and we have the custodian’s name: Ibn Waqsha. The custodian had a jinni that was visible to him (ra ֓ı̄ mina l-jinn) and used to inform him of what was to happen. One day the jinni came to Ibn Waqsha and told him something, then he turned to Dhubāb and informed him of Muh.ammad’s appearance in Mecca (which places the event at the time when the Prophet was still in Mecca). So Dhubāb smashed the idol and came to Muh.ammad. The report is also found in Ibn Manda’s Dalā ֓il al-nubuwwa (but not in his Companion dictionary), in Bayhaqı̄’s Dalā ֓il al-nubuwwa and in al-Mu֒āfā ibn Zakariyyā֓’s al-Jalı̄s al-s.ālih..87 Evidently, the literary merits of the account secured it a place in the last mentioned adab work. The existence of Farrās., the idol of Sa֒d al-֒Ashı̄ra, is arguably the only trustworthy detail in the tradition on Dhubāb’s conversion. T . ay֓: Māzin ibn al-Ghad.ūba and Bājir The Prophet’s Companion Māzin ibn al-Ghad.ūba was of the T.ay֓, more precisely of a group called Khit.āma, hence the nisba al-Khit.āmı̄. Khit.āma was his great-great-grandfather.88 The full version of his story was preserved in T.abarānı̄’s al-Mu ֒jam al-kabı̄r. Māzin was the custodian of an idol called Bājir89 located in a village in ֒Umān called Samā֓il (or Samāyil; elsewhere we encounter the variants al-Simāl, Samāyā and Sanābil).90 According to Māzin’s statement, he was in charge of his people (fa-kuntu l-qayyim bi-umūrihim). One day, when he and others were sacrificing sheep (or goats, fa֒atarnā . . . ֒atı̄ra) to it, he heard a voice from inside it announcing the appearance of a prophet from Mud.ar and calling upon him to abandon his stone idol. A rider from the H . ijāz confirmed the appearance of Ah.mad, and Māzin broke the idol to pieces and travelled to the Prophet. The latter cured him of his excessive love for music, wine and women of ill repute, and his blessing gave the childless Māzin a boy called H . ayyān. The isnād of this report goes back to ֒Alı̄ ibn H . arb al-Maws.ilı̄ < Ibn al-Kalbı̄ < his father < ֒Abdallāh al-֒Umānı̄ < Māzin ibn 87 Is.āba, II, 402–403; Bayhaqı̄, Dalā ֓il , II, 259. In Mu֒āfā, Jalı̄s .sālih., I, 557–58, the idol is called F.rās and the custodian is Ibn Waqsha/Ibn Daqsha. In Usd al-ghāba, II, 136, the idol is Qarrād. and the custodian Ibn Ruqayba/Ibn Waqsha. The entry is taken from the Companion dictionary of Abū Mūsā Muh.ammad ibn Abı̄ Bakr ibn Abı̄ ֒Īsā al-Madı̄nı̄ al-Is.fahānı̄, Dhayl ma ֒rifat al-s.ah.āba, which includes corrections to Ibn Manda’s dictionary and additional materials. According to Usd al-ghāba, I, 4, al-Madı̄nı̄’s book was shorter than Ibn Manda’s by one third. See an entry on Abū Mūsā in Nubalā ֓, XXI, 152–59. 88 Is.āba, V, 704; Istı̄ ֒āb, III, 1344; Ibn al-Kalbı̄, Nasab Ma ֒add , I, 261; ֒Ujāla, 55, s.v. alKhit.āmı̄. An entry on Māzin can also be found in Ibn Qāni֒, Mu ֒jam al-s.ah.āba, III, 121–22. 89 Or Bāh.ir, or Nājir; see below. 90 See the last mentioned variant in H . imyarı̄, Rawd., 326, s.v. Sanābil. Regarding the idol’s name cf. As.nām, 63, quoting Ibn Durayd: Bāj(a/i)r was worshipped by the Azd and their neighbours from the T . ay֓ and Qud.ā֒a; Ibn Durayd, Jamharat al-lugha, I, 267. Arabian Idol Worship 19 92 al-Ghad.ūba himself.91 ֒Alı̄ ibn H . arb ibn Muh.ammad ibn ֒Alı̄ ibn H . ayyān ibn Māzin ibn al-Ghad.ūba al-T.ā֓ı̄ al-Maws.ilı̄ (d. 265/878–79) was, as is shown by his 93 pedigree, the great-great-grandson of Māzin’s only child, H . ayyān. Al-Kalbı̄’s source, ֒Abdallāh al-֒Umānı̄, was probably a member of Māzin’s family who transmitted Māzin’s story with all its embellishments and verse. Although ֒Alı̄ ibn H . arb transmitted h.adı̄th, among others, from his father, H . arb ibn Muh.ammad, with whom he travelled to learn h.adı̄th; and although the former was an expert on the history, genealogy and wars of the Arabs (wa-kāna ֒āliman bi-akhbāri l֒arab wa-ansābihā wa-ayyāmihā),94 he turned to Ibn al-Kalbı̄ in order to learn or transmit his own family history. ֒Alı̄ and other scholarly family members proudly carried the nisba al-Māzinı̄ with reference to their famous ancestor, the former custodian Māzin.95 T.abarānı̄ (d. 360/971) received ֒Alı̄ ibn H . arb’s report through Mūsā ibn Jumhūr al-Tinnı̄sı̄ al-Simsār. But Mūsā was not the only person who transmitted it from ֒Alı̄. ֒Alı̄ also transmitted it to his great-grandson — in other words the family tradition was still preserved into the 4th/10th century — who in turn transmitted it in Baghdad in 338/949–50 to a muh.addith called Muh.ammad ibn al-H . usayn al-Qat.t.ān. Al-Qat.t.ān transmitted it to Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqı̄ (d. 458/1066) who included it in his Dalā ֓il al-nubuwwa. ֒Alı̄’s great-grandson inserted into the report taken from his great-grandfather’s written source (as.l jaddı̄)96 details received from a friend in ֒Umān who referred to a local tradition (֒an salafihim). Following his conversion, Māzin became separated from his tribe97 and established a mosque which had magical qualities: if someone who had been wronged prayed in it and cursed his oppressor, his prayer was accepted. An anonymous hand added on the margin of the manuscript (as.l alsamā ֒) that a leper was almost cured there, and hence the mosque to this day is called mubris. (literally: “causing one to become leprous”).98 In this version of the report ֒Alı̄ describes his meeting with Ibn al-Kalbı̄ in detail. When the latter found out that the former was a descendant of Khit.āma, he asked: “From the custodian’s offspring?” Then he reported to him what he had heard from shuyūkh T . ay ֓ al-mutaqaddimı̄na, or the elders of the T.ay֓. The family’s attitude to Māzin’s custodianship was far from apologetic; it was its claim to fame.99 91 T.abarānı̄, al-Mu ֒jam al-kabı̄r , XX, 337–39. See also T . abarānı̄, T . iwāl , 154–56. In Majma ֒ al-zawā ֓id , VIII, 247–48, the text is garbled. 92 Printed: H . arb. 93 Mizzı̄, XX, 361–65. 94 Mizzı̄, XX, 361, 363–64. ֒Alı̄’s father was a merchant; Nubalā ֓, XII, 251. His entry is followed by entries on three of his brothers; ibid., 253–56. 95 Sam֒ānı̄, V, 165, who mentions a Māzinı̄ called Salama ibn ֒Amr. 96 Cf. Robinson, Empire and Elites, 132. 97 The fact of the separation is mentioned in T . abarānı̄, al-Mu ֒jam al-kabı̄r , XX, 339, where it is reported that he moved to the coast. 98 Bayhaqı̄, Dalā ֓il , II, 255–58. 99 In this version, Māzin was a custodian of several idols belonging to his family (wa-kāna 20 Arabian Idol Worship ֒Alı̄ ibn H . arb also transmitted the report to a muh.addith called ֒Abd alRah.mān ibn Muh.ammad al-H . anz.alı̄, whence it reached al-H . ākim al-Naysābūrı̄ ֓ (d. 405/1014–15; perhaps it is found in his Ta rı̄kh Naysābūr ) via another transmitter.100 The family was naturally interested in establishing Companion status for the former custodian on the basis of the above story. In this it was very successful, as shown by Māzin’s entries in the Companion dictionaries101 and by quotations in other types of literature. T.abarānı̄’s al-Mu ֒jam al-kabı̄r has already been quoted. The Dalā ֓il al-nubuwwa literature merits special mention here.102 Māzin’s story was made attractive for later compilers by its legendary elements and verse. Historians looking for solid facts may find this story worthless; but the existence of the specified village in ֒Umān and Māzin’s custodianship of an idol are unlikely to have been invented. Another family tradition is interwoven with the one discussed above. An Arab mawlā or manumitted slave of Māzin called Abū Kathı̄r S.ālih. (or Yasār/Nashı̄t./Dı̄nār) ibn al-Mutawakkil is supposed to have been introduced by him to the Prophet as his slave (ghulām). Prompted by the Prophet, Māzin there and then manumitted the slave. It is not hard to find out who preserved this report, no doubt because he benefited from it: Ibn Manda (d. 395/1005) received the report about the mawlā from none other than ֒Alı̄ ibn H . arb. ֒Alı̄ in turn transmitted it from a descendant of the manumitted slave, al-H . asan ibn Kathı̄r ibn Yah.yā ibn Abı̄ Kathı̄r < his father < his grandfather. Ibn Manda reports that S.ālih. and his master Māzin were killed in Bardha֒a during ֒Uthmān’s caliphate.103 S.ālih. played a useful role for Māzin’s descendants: he transmitted a h.adı̄th which Māzin reported on the Prophet’s authority. The h.adı̄th which is in favour of truthfulness is vague enough to be ascribed to anyone; this is yet another technique employed by Māzin’s offspring in order to secure Companion status for their ancestor.104 Bajı̄la: Jarı̄r ibn ֒Abdallāh and Dhū l-Khalas.a Under wafd Bajı̄la Ibn Sa֒d quotes a report from Wāqidı̄ who in turn quotes a Medinan authority, ֒Abd yasdunu l-as.nām li-ahlihi ); he had an idol called Bājir, var. Nājir. 100 Bayhaqı̄, Dalā ֓il , II, 258 (the name of the village here is al-Simāl). 101 Somewhat dissenting from the consensus was Ibn H . ibbān (quoted in Is.āba, V, 704: yuqālu inna lahu .suh.ba); see the same cautious remark in Ibn H . ibbān, Thiqāt, III, 407. 102 Abū Nu֒aym, Dalā ֓il , 114–17 (the beginning of the account is garbled; the name of the village was Samāyā; the idol’s name was Bājir); Bayhaqı̄, Dalā ֓il , II, 255–58; Suyūt.ı̄, Khas.ā ֓is., I, 256–57. 103 Quoted in Is.āba, III, 403. For an entry on Yah.yā ibn Abı̄ Kathı̄r see Mizzı̄, XXXI, 504– 11. He was tortured and flogged and had his beard removed for reviling the Umayyad rulers (mtuh.ina wa-d.uriba wa-h.uliqa li-kawnihi ntaqas.a Banı̄ Umayya); Tadhkirat al-h.uffāz., I, 128. 104 Is.āba, V, 705, with reference to earlier Companion dictionaries and Wakı̄֒’s Nawādir alakhbār (GAS , I, 376); T . abarānı̄, al-Mu ֒jam al-kabı̄r , XX, 337 (with some variants in the isnād ). Arabian Idol Worship 21 al-H . amı̄d ibn Ja֒far < his father. The story includes details about the destruction of Dhū l-Khalas.a by Jarı̄r ibn ֒Abdallāh al-Bajalı̄.105 But a comparison with reports on the destruction in other sources points to Jarı̄r himself as the origin of the story. A good authority on this is al-T.abarānı̄’s al-Mu ֒jam al-kabı̄r where all the reports on this matter go back to Ismā֒ı̄l ibn Abı̄ Khālid < Qays ibn Abı̄ H . āzim, with two exceptions: one from Bayān ibn Bishr al-Bajalı̄ < Qays ibn Abı̄ 106 H . āzim, and another from T.āriq ibn ֒Abd al-Rah.mān < Qays ibn Abı̄ H . āzim. The Kūfan Ismā֒ı̄l ibn Abı̄ Khālid al-Bajalı̄ al-Ah.ması̄ was a mawlā of the Ah.mas.107 Also the Kūfan faqı̄h Qays ibn Abı̄ H . āzim is referred to as al-Bajalı̄ al-Ah.ması̄.108 The same is true of the Kūfan Bayān ibn Bishr who was al-Bajalı̄ al-Ah.ması̄109 and of the Kūfan T.āriq ibn ֒Abd al-Rah.mān al-Bajalı̄ al-Ah.ması̄.110 The pattern is clear: only fellow Bajalı̄s were concerned with telling the story of Jarı̄r and Dhū l-Khalas.a. Although they were all Ah.ması̄s while Jarı̄r belonged to another branch of the Bajı̄la, namely the Qasr,111 this is tribal history par excellence. The military power with which Jarı̄r set out to demolish Dhū lKhalas.a included Ah.ması̄s, which made the expedition a matter of special interest for the Ah.ması̄ transmitters. Dhū l-Khalas.a was at the background of their attempt to capture the glorious moments in the history of their tribe. A brief comment associating Jarı̄r with idol worship is found in a long report about Jarı̄r’s visit to the Prophet quoted by Ibn Shabba from Ibn Zabāla. The isnād goes back to Zuhrı̄ < ֒Ubaydallāh ibn ֒Abdallāh ibn ֒Utba ibn Mas֒ūd < Ibn ֒Abbās (hence this is not a family tradition): the Prophet told Jarı̄r that he would not attain the sharı̄ ֒a or religious law of Islam until he abandoned idol worship.112 Some notes on the worship of Dhū l-Khalas.a are in place here. As a rule the tribes who rebelled after the Prophet’s death did not threaten, nor did they intend, to return to idol worship. But at least in one case such a possibility is thought to have been taken into account. Abū Bakr ordered Jarı̄r ibn ֒Abdallāh al-Bajalı̄ to fight the Khath֒amı̄s who had rebelled because of their anger on behalf of Dhū l-Khalas.a, wanting to reinstate it.113 Dhū l-Khalas.a was not just another tribal idol but rather a cultic centre. Under wafd Bajı̄la Ibn Sa֒d reports that when Jarı̄r came to the Prophet for the first time and reported that the tribes had destroyed their idols, the Prophet specifically inquired about Dhū l-Khalas.a and found out that it was still intact. Jarı̄r 105 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 347–48. T.abarānı̄, al-Mu ֒jam al-kabı̄r , 299–301, 310–12. 107 Mizzı̄, III, 69–76. 108 Mizzı̄, XXIV, 10–16; Ibn H . azm, Ansāb, 389. 109 Mizzı̄, IV, 303–305. 110 Mizzı̄, XIII, 345–48. 111 Ibn H . azm, Ansāb, 387. 112 Ibn Shabba, II, 568. 113 . . . Wa-amarahu an ya ֓tiya Khath ֒am fa-yuqātila man kharaja ghad.aban li-Dhı̄ l-Khalas.a wa-man arāda i ֒ādatahu; T.abarı̄, I, 1988. 106 22 Arabian Idol Worship was sent to destroy it and he took what was on it (i.e., jewellery or weapons) and set fire to it.114 In other words, Dhū l-Khalas.a lasted longer than the other idols, at least in its vicinity. This is also reflected in the Prophet’s alleged statement that of the .tawāghı̄t of the Jāhiliyya only the bayt of Dhū l-Khalas.a remained.115 It took a large military force to overcome the resistance of the Khath֒am there. Jarı̄r came to Muh.ammad in Ramad.ān, 10 A.H.116 This means that news about the demolition of Dhū l-Khalas.a reached Muh.ammad shortly before his death. The demolition and the death of the Khath֒amı̄s who defended it are in the background of the visit of wafd Khath ֒am.117 Dhū l-Khalas.a possibly enjoyed a status similar to that of the Ka֒ba: it was called al-Ka֒ba al-Yamāniyya or the Yemenite Ka֒ba, while the Meccan Ka֒ba was al-Ka֒ba al-Shāmiyya.118 As was the case with the Ka֒ba (see below, 32n), Dhū l-Khalas.a was probably a place where many idols — possibly tribal idols — were located.119 It stands to reason that tribes worshipping Dhū l-Khalas.a were not among those associated with the cult of the Ka֒ba. This can be shown with regard to the Khath֒am, the tribe most closely associated with Dhū l-Khalas.a: the T.ay֓, Khath֒am and Qud.ā֒a did not respect the sanctity of Mecca’s h.aram and that of the sacred months, while the other tribes performed the pilgrimage to the Ka֒ba and respected it.120 T.ay֓ and Khath֒am did not perform the pilgrimage to Mecca and were called al-afjarāni.121 One is not surprised to find Khath֒amı̄s in Abraha’s army which attacked Mecca.122 Among those who worshipped Dhū l-Khalas.a were the Azd al-Sarāt.123 Now while the Khath֒am delegation only came to the Prophet after the demolition of their idol, some seventy or eighty men from important families (ahl bayt) of the 114 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 347–48. T.abarānı̄, al-Mu ֒jam al-kabı̄r , II, 312. 116 Ansāb al-ashrāf , I, 384. 117 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 348. Under the title mawād.i ֒ al-֒ibāda or places of worship, Hamdānı̄ (S.ifa, 240), lists the following: Mecca, Īliyā֓, Allāt in the upper part (bi-a ֒lā) of Nakhla, Dhū lKhalas.a near (bi-nāh.iyat) Tabāla, Ka֒bat Najrān, Riyām in the land of Hamdān and the church of al-Bāghūta in H . ı̄ra. In fact Allāt was located in T . ā֓if, while al-֒Uzzā was located in Nakhla. 118 Yāqūt, s.v. al-Khalas.a, 383b. 119 Note the definition of al-Khalas.a as bayt as.nām; ibid., 383a. The word al-zūn is supposed to mean a place of this kind. It is interpreted as mawd.i ֒ tujma ֒u fı̄hi l-as.nām wa-tuns.abu; also: al-zūn baytu l-as.nām ayy mawd.i ֒ kāna; Yāqūt, s.v. al-Zūn. See also Lisān al-֒arab, the end of s.v. z.y.n. (wa-l-zūn mawd.i ֒ tujma ֒u fı̄hi l-as.nām wa-tuns.abu wa-tuzayyanu). 120 M.J. Kister, “Mecca and Tamı̄m”, 119. When Abū ֒Uthmān al-Nahdı̄ (Qud.ā֒a) refers to his pilgrimages before Islam, he does not have the Ka֒ba in his mind but probably Yaghūth; Ibn ֒Asākir, XXXV, 472 (aslamtu fı̄ h.ayāt rasūli llāh .s wa-qad h.ajajtu bi-Yaghūth [read probably Yaghūtha] wa-kāna .sanaman min ras.ās. li-Qud.ā ֒a timthāla mra ֓a wa-dawwartu l-adwira). The mention of the Khath֒am among the tribes of the h.ums is no doubt erroneous, while the reading Jusham is correct; Kister, “Mecca and Tamı̄m”, 132. 121 Ibid., 134, n. 5. 122 M.J. Kister, “Some reports concerning Mecca from Jāhiliyya to Islam”, 69–70, 72. 123 As.nām, 35; Ansāb al-ashrāf , I, 384. 115 Arabian Idol Worship 23 Daws, a subdivision of the Azd, among them Abū Hurayra and ֒Abdallāh ibn Uzayhir, arrived some two years earlier, when the Prophet was in Khaybar.124 When the Daws linked themselves to Muh.ammad, Dhū l-Khalas.a lost many of its worshippers. The Daws are singled out among former worshippers of Dhū l-Khalas.a as the ones most prone to return to their pagan ways. The Dawsı̄ Abū Hurayra transmitted on the authority of Muh.ammad: “Before the arrival of the Hour the buttocks of the women of Daws will move from side to side around Dhū l-Khalas.a” (lā taqūmu l-sā ֒a h.attā tad..tariba alayāt nisā ֓ Daws h.awla Dhı̄ l-khalas.a).125 The Prophet’s alleged utterance no doubt reflects actual practice. In eschatological times the Ka֒ba would remain safe while the southern tribes’ yearning for idolatry would revive the cultic centre at Dhū l-Khalas.a. Let us sum up this section. Many conversion stories involving idols are recorded in the sources; their number could probably be multiplied. Other similar stories were not as successful and remained outside the literature. The stories were usually preserved by tribal authorities who were often the direct descendants of the persons involved. The identification of these authorities is not always possible because many of them were not involved in the transmission of “prestigious” h.adı̄th, and hence were not of interest for the rijāl experts. The main concern of the tribal authorities was to establish their ancestors’ entitlement to Companion status. At a later stage the stories entered the general Islamic heritage through their inclusion in specialized types of literature. Most relevant are the Companion dictionaries and compilations regarding Dalā ֓il al-nubuwwa or “Proofs of Muh.ammad’s Prophethood”, where the former functionaries of idolatry testify to the collapse of idol worship. Most of the conversion stories are not widely disseminated, but this does not weaken their relevance for the study of idol worship. After all, nobody in his right mind would assume that so many tribal informants 124 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 353; Muntaz.am, III, 304. The arrival of the Dawsı̄s may well have been part of the H . udaybiyya agreement: ֒Abdallāh ibn Uzayhir was probably a relative of Abū Uzayhir since the name Uzayhir is fairly rare. I could find no entry on ֒Abdallāh in the Companion dictionaries. Abū Uzayhir was the h.alı̄f or protected neighbour and father-in-law of Abū Sufyān; H . assān, Dı̄wān, II, 258. The former was called by his daughter sayyid ahl al-Sarāt, 259. He entered Mecca under Abū Sufyān’s protection (wa-kāna yadkhulu Makka fı̄ jiwār Abı̄ Sufyān); Ibn ֒Asākir, XL, 273. After the Battle of Badr he was murdered by Hishām ibn al-Mughı̄ra, and Quraysh sent a messenger to the Sarāt to warn the Qurashı̄ traders there about a possible Dawsı̄ reprisal; Aghānı̄, II, 243 (printed al-Sharāt). The Qurashı̄ trade route to the Yemen of course passed through the Sarāt. In fact Abū Uzayhir was not of the Daws but of al-S.a֒b ibn Duhmān. He was only called al-Dawsı̄ because on the battlefield his tribe belonged to the military forces of the Daws (lianna ֒idādahu kāna fı̄ Daws); Ibn H . azm, Ansāb, 385–86. 125 Muslim, IV, 2230 (Kitāb al-fitan wa-ashrāt. al-sā ֒a). The following eschatological h.adı̄th speaks of a return to the worship of Allāt and al-֒Uzzā. For variants on the topic of Dhū l-Khalas.a see Fitan, 302 (idhā ֒ubidat Dhū l-Khalas.a . . . kāna .zuhūru l-Rūm ֒alā l-Shām), 364 (Abū Hurayra: . . . ka-֓annı̄ bi-alayāt nisā ֓ Daws qadi .s.tafaqat ya ֒budūna Dhā l-Khalas.a); Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry, 124. 24 Arabian Idol Worship could plot together to invent idols which had not existed. The legendary elements in the conversion stories of pagan Arabs can be rejected, but the factual details about the idols remain intact. In short, unless the converts to Islam were Christians, Jews or Zoroastrians, conversion meant the abandonment of idolatry. Two more observations may be added. Whether or not there was a “lapse of a long time” before the recording of these stories in a literary source is not a matter of crucial importance.126 In any case , since conversion stories involving idols go back to the early days of Islam, it would be mistaken to assume a large gap between the actual idol worship and the preservation of the evidence about it.127 2 The system of idol worship in Medina The second part of this study focuses on Medina. It is widely assumed that on the eve of the Hijra idol worship in Medina was declining, and hence Muh.ammad only had to deal it the final blow. Wellhausen argued that the Medinans were even more indifferent to their idols than were the Meccans. In his view the Jews and Christians brought monotheism to the Ans.ār and prepared them for Islam. Islam spread among them very quickly, and even before the Prophet’s Hijra almost all the Ans.ār were Muslims. To the extent that they resisted the Prophet, Wellhausen said, the background for this was political and not religious: they mourned yesterday’s freedom and not yesterday’s idols.128 In fact, most of the Medinans did not convert to Islam before Muh.ammad’s arrival. For several years after the Hijra a significant section of the population remained pagan. Only the downfall of the Jewish Qurayz.a on whom many Medinans were politically, economically and militarily dependent made them embrace Islam.129 The actual number of members of the Aws and Khazraj who converted to Judaism was relatively small. It is true that in the crucial negotiations which led to the Hijra a significant role was played by Medinans who had learned to read in 126 Cf. Arafat, “Fact and fiction”, 9. Cf. Krone, Die altarabische Gottheit al-Lāt, 14: “Kunde über das arabische Heidentum geben uns zahlreiche Werke der Arabischen ‘Gelehrten Literatur’. Zwar wurde in dem ersten Generationen nach dem Siegeszug des Islam noch bewußt auf eine Beschäftigung mit der Religion der Ǧāhiliyya verzichtet, um diese in Vergessenheit geraten zu lassen, doch schon im 2. Jh. der Hiǧra erwachte ein lebhaftes Interesse an der Erforschung des altarabischen Heidentums”; Krone assumes a gap of at least one hundred years between the end of idol worship and the beginning of scholarly interest in idols; ibid., 20. 128 Skizzen, IV, 15–16. Also Watt, Mecca, 23 (“. . . it is generally agreed that the archaic pagan religion was comparatively uninfluential in Muh.ammad’s time”). 129 Lecker, Muslims, Jews and Pagans, 19–49. Wensinck said about the inhabitants of Yathrib: “Their receptiveness for monotheism can only be explained by their long contact with the Jews”; Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, 4. 127 Arabian Idol Worship 25 the Jewish Bayt al-Midrās;130 but most Medinans remained immersed in private and public idol worship. The latter was closely connected to the different levels of tribal organization. It is impossible to measure the intensity of religious feeling among the Medinans,131 and hence it is best to stick to the evidence. This is undertaken in what follows. 2.1 Household idols The existence of house or family idols has been known for many years but has not been given due weight.132 Acquaintance with the household idols is very significant for the evaluation of idol worship in Medina and elsewhere, since this form of private worship was the one most common among the settled people of Arabia. The Medinan household idols, exactly like the Meccan, were made of wood. In Mecca they used to stroke their idols (above, 4) and in Medina they did the same, as is shown by the story of Ka֒b ibn ֒Ujra.133 There is a relatively large number of conversion stories from Medina involving idols, but only a handful regarding Meccans. This may be accounted for by the different circumstances of conversion in these towns. When Mecca was conquered by Muh.ammad in 8/630, its pagan inhabitants converted, or are supposed to have converted, immediately. In Medina conversion was a long process accompanied by internal strife. In addition, the people of Mecca probably displayed more internal cohesion in comparison with the Medinans, many of whom were prepared to defy the existing system of leadership and idol worship. Many of the idols mentioned in the Medinan conversion stories were household idols. In every or almost every Medinan and Meccan house there was a small 130 Lecker, “Zayd ibn Thābit”, 271; idem, “Idol worship”, 343. Goldziher wrote: “At Yathrib the indigenous disposition of immigrant tribes from the south produced a mood more easily accessible to religious thought which was a great help to Muhammed’s success”; Muslim Studies, I, 13f. Goldziher had in mind the influence of Yemenite monotheism on the Arabs of Yathrib who were supposed to have been more religious than the other Arabs in central Arabia. Margoliouth, Mohammed , 25, remarks cautiously, without specifically referring to Goldziher: “A great scholar, indeed, from whom it is unsafe to differ, finds a difference between the central and the southern Arabians, and supposes the latter to have been earnest worshippers, while the former were indifferent”. According to Margoliouth, “the Arabs of Central Arabia were not wanting in piety”. 132 Wellhausen mentioned the Hausgötze. Lammens, L’Arabie occidentale, 139, correctly criticized Wellhausen for conflating the “dieux domestiques” with the idols held by the leaders (on which see below). Lammens (140) erroneously assumed that the pre-Islamic Arabs knew only of a public cult, such as was performed by the tribal group (“Inutile . . . de parler de culte privé, de dieux lares ou domestiques. L’Arabe de la préhégire n’a jamais entrevu que la culte public, celui pratiqué par le clan, dont les rares manifestations sufissaient à épuiser sa courte dévotion”). 133 Ista ֓khara islām Ka ֒b ibn ֒Ujra wa-kāna lahu .sanam yukrimuhu wa-yamsah.uhu . . . ; Nubalā ֓, III, 53 (quoting Wāqidı̄); Lecker, “Idol worship”, 340–41. 131 26 Arabian Idol Worship carved wooden idol. In other words, in both towns there was an intensive religious life on the family level. Since Mecca and Medina differed from each other in many ways, one can expect this common denominator, namely household idolatry, to have been general in other Arabian settlements as well. The ubiquity of these idols among the settled population and the level of attachment to them speak against the assumption that idol worship was declining in the years preceding the advent of Islam. A wooden idol presented an obstacle to Abū T.alh.a of the Najjār (Khazraj) when he proposed to a Najjārı̄ woman, Umm Sulaym bint Milh.ān (Anas ibn Mālik’s mother). Abū T.alh.a wanted to marry her after Anas’s father had died, but she refused because he was a polytheist (mushrik). She reproached him for worshipping a stone which did neither harm nor good and a piece of wood hewed for him by a carpenter (khashaba ta ֓tı̄ bihā l-najjār fa-yanjuruhā laka), that similarly could not hurt nor benefit. He agreed to embrace Islam and she accepted his conversion as dowry.134 Among the Ghanm ibn Mālik ibn al-Najjār there was a man called ֒Amr ibn Qays known as .sāh.ib ālihatihim fı̄ l-jāhiliyya, “the person in charge of their gods (or idols) in the Jāhiliyya”. He was once expelled from the mosque of the Prophet together with other munāfiqūn. While he was being ejected, he complained about his forcible removal from the mirbad , or the drying floor for dates, of the Banū Tha֒laba.135 Since we know that he was of the Ghanm ibn Mālik ibn al-Najjār, we can easily identify the Tha֒laba in question as the Tha֒laba ibn Ghanm ibn Mālik ibn al-Najjār.136 In connection with Medinan idols we encounter the verb lat..takha, “to defile, soil”. The source of what follows is supposed to be ֒Alı̄: during a funeral (i.e., a Muslim’s funeral outside Medina) Muh.ammad looked for one who would volunteer to break every idol (wathan) in Medina, level every tomb and defile or besmear with slime every statue or figure (s.ūra). An unidentified person who volunteered returned without carrying out this mission since he feared the people 134 The report is autobiographical: it is reported on the authority of Ish.āq ibn ֒Abdallāh ibn Abı̄ T . alh.a (d. 132/749–50 or 134/751–52) who quotes his grandmother, Umm Sulaym; Ibn Sa֒d, VIII, 425–26. Abū T . alh.a was of the Maghāla, or the ֒Adı̄ ibn ֒Amr ibn Mālik ibn al-Najjār; Ibn Qudāma, Istibs.ār , 49–50. Umm Sulaym was of the H . arām ibn Jundab ibn ֒Āmir ibn Ghanm ibn ֒Adı̄ ibn al-Najjār; ibid., 36–40. See an entry on Ish.āq in Mizzı̄, II, 444–46. Other reports (ibid., 427) more precisely reflect the material of which household idols were made: they refer to a wooden idol hewed by a slave who was a carpenter and to an Ethiopian slave: inna ālihatakumu llatı̄ ta ֒budūna yanh.utuhā ֒abd āl fulān al-najjār wa-innakum law sha ֒altum fı̄hā nāran la-֓h.taraqat; a-lasta ta ֒lamu anna ilāhaka lladhı̄ ta ֒budu innamā huwa shajara tanbutu mina l-ard. wa-innamā najarahā h.abashı̄ banı̄ fulān? In itself the verb nah.ata is indifferent to the material used; when said of wood it is synonymous with najara; Lane, 2773b. 135 Ibn Hishām, II, 175; Lecker, “Idol worship”, 335. The identification put forward in ibid., n. 25, is uncertain. 136 Cf. Ibn Qudāma, Istibs.ār , 56–64, especially 63–64 (regarding the two orphans who owned the mirbad on which the Prophet’s mosque was built). Arabian Idol Worship 27 of Medina, so ֒Alı̄ had to do it.137 A variant of this h.adı̄th has it that the Prophet ordered a man of the Ans.ār to level every tomb and defile (yulat..tikha) every idol. The man protested against entering the houses of his people (buyūt qawmı̄), and hence ֒Alı̄ was sent for.138 Regardless of its value as a historical source, the environment in which the h.adı̄th was created evidently included rampant idol worship. In the Jāhiliyya As֒ad ibn Zurāra (Najjār) and Abū l-Haytham ibn alTayyihān (a Balawı̄ client of the ֒Abd al-Ashhal or the Za֒ūrā֓) hated idols and were disgusted by them; both men were monotheists.139 As we shall see, the former was also involved in the actual destruction of idols. There are several accounts of young Medinans who enthusiastically received Muh.ammad and broke or smashed (kasara/kassara) the idols of their tribal groups. They are found among both the Aws and Khazraj, more specifically the Salima, Bayād.a, Sā֒ida, Mālik ibn al-Najjār and ֒Adı̄ ibn al-Najjār of the Khazraj, and the ֒Abd al-Ashhal, H . āritha, ֒Amr ibn ֒Awf, Khat.ma and Wāqif of the Aws. The evidence regarding idol worship among the Khazraj subdivision called Salima is relatively abundant, probably not because idolatry was more widespread among them, but because they were more numerous than the other subdivisions, or because the Prophet had more supporters among them. 2.1.1 Idols in Medinan conversion stories Idols play a significant role in stories of Medinan conversions. Ziyād ibn Labı̄d and Farwa ibn ֒Amr of the Bayād.a broke the idols of the Bayād.a.140 Sa֒d ibn ֒Ubāda, al-Mundhir ibn ֒Amr and Abū Dujāna broke the idols of the Sā֒ida.141 ֒Umāra ibn H . azm, As֒ad ibn Zurāra and ֒Awf ibn ֒Afrā֓ broke the idols of the Mālik ibn al-Najjār.142 Salı̄t. ibn Qays and Abū S.irma broke the idols of the ֒Adı̄ ibn al-Najjār.143 One of the ֒Adı̄ ibn al-Najjār, Abū Qays S.irma ibn Abı̄ Anas, who embraced Islam at an advanced age, had rejected idol worship in the Jāhiliyya.144 137 Ah.mad, I, 87; Majma ֒ al-zawā ֓id , V, 172. Both texts are garbled. Fā ֓iq, II, 366, has instead of lat..takha: .talakha, “to besmear with slime”. 138 Ah.mad, I, 139:18; Majma ֒ al-zawā ֓id , V, 172–73. 139 Ibn Sa֒d, III, 448; Nubalā ֓, I, 190; Lecker, “Idol worship”, 336. 140 Ibn Sa֒d, III, 598. 141 Ibn Sa֒d, III, 614. 142 Ibn Sa֒d, III, 486, 609–610. 143 Ibn Sa֒d, III, 512. According to some, Abū S.irma was of the Māzin ibn al-Najjār, not of the ֒Adı̄; Mizzı̄, XXXIII, 426; Istı̄ ֒āb, IV, 1691 (the Māzinı̄ version regarding his origin was more widespread). 144 Ibn H . azm, Ansāb, 350 (rafad.a l-awthān); Ibn Hishām, II, 156 (wa-fāraqa l-awthān); Murūj , I, 81 (wa-hajara l-awthān); Rubin, “H . anı̄fiyya”, 98. Note that the sources quoted by Rubin do not refer to him as a h.anı̄f. The source of Ibn Ish.āq’s report which is missing in Ibn Hishām is provided elsewhere: Muh.ammad ibn Ja֒far ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-֒Awwām; Is.āba, III, 28 Arabian Idol Worship We now turn to the Aws. Sa֒d ibn Mu֒ādh and Usayd ibn H . ud.ayr broke the idols of the ֒Abd al-Ashhal.145 Usayd belonged to ֒Abd al-Ashhal’s leading family: his father, H . ud.ayr, was the ra ֓ı̄s or battlefield commander of the Aws at the Battle of Bu֒āth and was known, as was his son after him, as al-kāmil or “the highly accomplished one” since they were both literate and excelled in swimming and archery.146 Abū ֒Abs ibn Jabr and Abū Burda ibn Niyār (a Balawı̄ client of 147 the H One pedigree of Abū ֒Abs makes . āritha) broke the idols of the H . āritha. him a member of the H . āritha, but an alternative pedigree adds Majda֒a before 148 the eponym H This would make him one of the Majda֒a, whose most . āritha. famous member was Muh.ammad ibn Maslama. In any case, Abū ֒Abs’s mother and two of the three women to whom he was married at different times of his life were of the Majda֒a: one of them was Muh.ammad ibn Maslama’s sister and the other was Muh.ammad’s daughter.149 Muh.ammad was a client (h.alı̄f ) of the ֒Abd al-Ashhal,150 and one assumes that Abū ֒Abs too was not a prominent figure in Medinan society before the advent of Islam. The same applies of course to the client Abū Burda. ֒Abdallāh ibn Jubayr and Sahl ibn H . unayf used to break up idols and bring the pieces to the Muslims who used them as firewood.151 The two belonged to different subdivisions of the ֒Amr ibn ֒Awf: the former was of the Tha֒laba and 152 the latter was of the H and it is thus clear that the idols in question . anash, ֒ ֒ were those of the Amr ibn Awf. Khuzayma ibn Thābit and ֒Umayr ibn ֒Adı̄ ibn Kharasha broke the idols of the Khat.ma.153 Hilāl ibn Umayya broke the idols of the Wāqif.154 Abū T.alh.a’s idol (above, 26) was made of wood, and this is of course true of the broken pieces used as firewood. Wood is also specifically mentioned in the case of another household idol. ֒Abdallāh ibn Rawāh.a rebuked its owner (who was perhaps Abū l-Dardā֓; see below) for worshipping a piece of wood which he had crafted with his own hand; the owner replied that he did not attack it because he feared for his young children.155 In other words, the wooden household idol was perceived as a tutelary idol. 422. Muh.ammad’s source may have been ֒Abd al-Rah.mān ibn ֒Uwaym b. Sā֒ida from whom Muh.ammad quoted another report regarding S.irma; ibid., 423. On Muh.ammad see Mizzı̄, XXIV, 579–80. 145 Ibn Sa֒d, III, 421. 146 Ibn Sa֒d, III, 604; Lecker, “Zayd ibn Thābit”, 268, n. 64. 147 Ibn Sa֒d, III, 450–51. 148 Is.āba, VII, 266. 149 Ibn Sa֒d, III, 450. 150 Ibn Qudāma, Istibs.ār , 242. 151 Ansāb al-ashrāf , I, 265; Lecker, “Idol worship”, 333. 152 Ibn Qudāma, Istibs.ār , 320–23. 153 Ibn Sa֒d, IV, 378. 154 Tahdhı̄b al-asmā ֓, I,ii, 139; Usd al-ghāba, V, 66. 155 Lecker, “Idol worship”, 338. Arabian Idol Worship 29 Some further characteristics of the household idols should be added. Before ֒Abdallāh ibn Rawāh.a destroyed Abū l-Dardā֓’s idol using an adze (qadūm; above, 4), he brought it down (fa-anzalahu). This probably indicates that the idol was placed in an elevated place, such as a shelf. In addition it is reported that Abū l-Dardā֓ hung a veil over his idol (wa-qad wad.a ֒a ֒alayhi mindı̄lan).156 In order to act against the household idol one had to enter the house.157 These characteristics were probably shared by household idols whether they were in Medina or elsewhere in Arabia. Among the twenty-odd persons mentioned as acting against idols, only three could be considered prominent members of pre-Islamic Medinan society, namely Mu֒ādh ibn ֒Amr ibn al-Jamūh. (see below) who belonged to a leading family of the Salima, Sa֒d ibn ֒Ubāda of the Sā֒ida and the “highly accomplished man” Usayd ibn al-H . ud.ayr of the ֒Abd al-Ashhal. Some correlation can be found between this list and the list of literate people: at least five of the idol breakers, Sa֒d ibn ֒Ubāda, al-Mundhir ibn ֒Amr, Mu֒ādh ibn Jabal, Usayd ibn al-H . ud.ayr ֒ and Abū Abs ibn Jabr were literate, which in the Medinan context meant that they were educated in the local Bayt al-Midrās.158 However, the typical idol destroyer belonged to the rank and file of his tribal group; two of the destroyers were clients. The reports on idol breakers are not documentary or archival evidence and some of them may have been invented. But it is no coincidence that so many of them are found in Ibn Sa֒d’s third volume which includes the biographies of the Prophet’s Companions who participated in the Battle of Badr. More precisely, they are in the latter part of the volume which is dedicated to the Badrı̄s among the Ans.ār. All of those involved were unmistakably among the earliest and most enthusiastic supporters of Muh.ammad in Medina. The accounts of their actions against the idols take for granted the existence of many such idols in Medina. In Mecca and Medina household idols were the most popular form of idol worship, and hence the evidence about them is crucial for assessing the extent of this worship. In what follows other categories of Medinan idols are discussed.159 These can all be linked to the tribal organization and belong to the public sphere, as opposed to the private cult discussed above. 2.2 Idols of noblemen In Ibn Shabba’s Akhbār Makka there are several passages containing rare testimony on idol worship in Medina. One passage speaks of idols held by every noblemen (rajul sharı̄f). ֒Amr ibn al-Jamūh. had Manāf, al-Barā֓ ibn Ma֒rūr had 156 Lecker, “Idol worship”, 340. Hence the above mentioned reluctance of the Ans.ārı̄ to enter the houses of his people (buyūt qawmı̄). 158 Lecker, “Zayd ibn Thābit”, 267–71. 159 The discussion relies in part on Lecker, “Idol worship”. 157 30 Arabian Idol Worship al-Dı̄bāj and al-Jadd ibn Qays had Zabr. All three belonged to the Salima. To the characteristics of noblemen in Medina we can probably add ownership of a fortress, since at least two of the above mentioned noblemen who owned idols were owners of fortresses.160 Although these are the only examples of idols owned by noblemen, there is no reason to assume that this type of idols was restricted to the Salima. That the three men belonged to leading families is also shown by Muh.ammad’s intervention with regard to the leadership of the Salima. In one version he is said to have replaced their sayyid , al-Jadd ibn Qays, by ֒Amr ibn al-Jamūh., while according to another al-Jadd was replaced by al-Barā֓ ibn Ma֒rūr’s son, Bishr.161 The versions reflect rival traditions among the Salima, probably among the descendants of the leaders involved; al-Barā֓ was of the ֒Ubayd subdivision of the Salima, while ֒Amr was of the H . arām subdivision. One report on the shift of leadership from al-Jadd to ֒Amr creates the mistaken impression that it was associated with idols. Al-Jadd was deposed and replaced by ֒Amr because of his (the former’s) stinginess. The report goes on to tell us about ֒Amr: wa-kāna ֒alā as.nāmihim fı̄ l-jāhiliyya wa-kāna yūlimu ֒alā rasūli llāh .s idhā tazawwaja, “and he was responsible for their idols in the Jāhiliyya and used to give a feast for the Messenger of God whenever he got married”. The isnād goes back to Abū l-Zubayr < Jābir ibn ֒Abdallāh.162 Jābir was an obvious source in this case since he was ֒Amr’s second cousin.163 It is tempting to link ֒Amr with the munāfiq regarding whom it was said that he was .sāh.ib ālihatihim (above, 26). But being put in charge of idols is not a direct response to stinginess and is inconsistent with giving the feasts for Muh.ammad. The correct reading is ֒alā ad.yāfihim, “he was responsible for their guests in the Jāhiliyya”.164 There is no unanimity regarding ֒Amr’s role before his conversion. An account by ֒Urwa ibn al-Zubayr on the activity of Mus.֒ab ibn ֒Umayr (of the Qurashı̄ clan ֒Abd al-Dār) in Medina before the Hijra includes details which do not appear in Ibn Hishām’s version of the report; perhaps they were also absent from Ibn Ish.āq’s biography of Muh.ammad. Mus.֒ab settled among the Ghanm ibn Mālik ibn al-Najjār with As֒ad ibn Zurāra. At a certain point, after the conversion to 160 Lecker, “Idol worship”, 336–38. In Abū Nu֒aym, Dalā ֓il , 310–12, read Manāf instead of Manāt (it was no doubt masculine); Ibn al-Jawzı̄, S.ifat al-s.afwa, I, 643–44; Nubalā ֓, I, 253. Read Manāf instead of Manāt also in Krone, Die altarabische Gottheit al-Lāt, 537. 161 See e.g. H . assān, Dı̄wān, I, 460–61; Ibn ֒Asākir, XII, 413. Ibn Ish.āq and Ma֒mar, on the authority of al-Zuhrı̄, said that al-Jadd was replaced by Bishr. As we shall see, the version which mentions al-Jadd’s replacement by ֒Amr goes back to Jābir ibn ֒Abdallāh. 162 Istı̄ ֒āb, III, 1170–71. See an entry on Abū l-Zubayr al-Makkı̄, Muh.ammad ibn Muslim (d. 126/743–44 or 128/745–46), in Mizzı̄, XXVI, 402–11. 163 Ibn Qudāma, Istibs.ār , 151–54. 164 Shu ֒ab al-ı̄mān, VIII, 431. In Fath. al-bārı̄, V, 128, the verb ya ֒tarid.u was added: wa-kāna ֒Amr ya ֒tarid.u ֒alā as.nāmihim fı̄ l-jāhiliyya. Obviously, it was felt that the idols did not go with the feasts and that ֒Amr’s image had to be corrected: he was not in charge of the idols but opposed them. Arabian Idol Worship 31 Islam of the ֒Abd al-Ashhal, the Najjār drove Mus.֒ab out and persecuted (wa֓shtaddū ֒alā) their fellow tribesman As֒ad. Mus.֒ab moved to Sa֒d ibn Mu֒ādh of the ֒Abd al-Ashhal where he continued his missionary work. Finally in every court (dār ) of the Ans.ār there were Muslim men and women. Their noblemen embraced Islam, among them ֒Amr ibn al-Jamūh.. Their idols were broken and the Muslims became the strongest people in Medina.165 Mus.֒ab’s expulsion from the court of the Najjār and his shift to Sa֒d ibn Mu֒ādh, both probably historical facts, were left out of the sı̄ra because they were considered embarrassing for the Najjār. The conversion of the noblemen, particularly that of ֒Amr, the only one to be specified, and the breaking up of the idols at this early stage (even before the second or major ֒Aqaba meeting), are an invention. ֒Urwa’s report is favourable to ֒Amr in that it dates his conversion to this early date.166 According to Ibn Ish.āq, however, ֒Amr’s conversion took place shortly after the major ֒Aqaba meeting, following the repeated humilation of his wooden idol, Manāf, at the hands of his own son, Mu֒ādh ibn ֒Amr ibn al-Jamūh., who cooperated with Mu֒ādh ibn Jabal and other young men of the Salima.167 The source of Ibn Ish.āq’s report is missing in Ibn Hishām. However, ֒Ās.im ibn ֒Umar ibn Qatāda who is often quoted by Ibn Ish.āq specifically stated that ֒Amr’s conversion was delayed (ta ֓akhkhara).168 According to Ibn al-Kalbı̄, ֒Amr was the last Ans.ārı̄ to embrace Islam.169 Mu֒ādh ibn Jabal also figures in another report related to idols. Mu֒ādh, Tha֒laba ibn ֒Anama al-Salamı̄ of the Sawād subdivision of Salima and ֒Abdallāh ibn Unays al-Juhanı̄, having converted to Islam, broke up the idols of the 165 T.abarānı̄, al-Mu ֒jam al-kabı̄r , XX, 362–64; Majma ֒ al-zawā ֓id , VI, 40–42; H . ilya, I, 106– 107. Wāqidı̄’s combined report in Ibn Sa֒d, III, 118, does not mention Mus.֒ab’s shift from the Najjār to the ֒Abd al-Ashhal. This was probably one of the details omitted by Wāqidı̄ in the process of creating the combined report. However, in the entry on Sa֒d ibn Mu֒ādh in Ibn Sa֒d, III, 420–21, it is reported that Sa֒d moved Mus.֒ab and As֒ad to his court — Sa֒d and As֒ad were maternal cousins. The source of this report is Sa֒d’s grandson, Wāqid ibn ֒Amr. 166 The same can probably be said of ֒Ikrima’s report on ֒Amr’s conversion which similarly links it to Mus.֒ab ibn ֒Umayr; Nubalā ֓, I, 253 (quoting ֒Ikrima). Initially ֒Amr apologized to Mus.֒ab, arguing that he had to consult his people: inna lanā mu ֓āmara fı̄ qawminā, wa-kāna sayyid banı̄ Salima (in fact he was one of their sayyid s). But soon afterwards the humiliation of his idol made him realize how weak and defenceless it was. Some of the themes of this humilation are known from Ibn Ish.āq’s account of ֒Amr’s conversion. 167 Ibn Hishām, II, 95–96 (erroneously printed Manāt). ֒Amr was one of the sayyid s of the Salima and one of their noblemen (sayyidan min sādāt banı̄ Salima wa-sharı̄fan min ashrāfihim). In his house he had a wooden idol, as was common among noblemen. They would take for themselves an idol, honour and purify (i.e. consecrate) it (kamā kānati l-ashrāf yas.na ֒ūna, tattakhidhuhu ilāhan tu ֒az..zimuhu wa-tut.ahhiruhu). The report on Mu֒ādh’s idol in Bad ֓ wata ֓rı̄kh, V, 117–18, is erroneous: Mu֒ādh should be replaced by Abū l-Dardā֓; Lecker, “Idol worship”, 339–40. On Mu֒ādh ibn Jabal see now van Ess, “Die Pest von Emmaus”. 168 See the paraphrased fragment quoted in Nubalā ֓, I, 253–54. Note that a report on ֒Amr’s burial is quoted by Ibn Ish.āq from his father < ashyākh of the Salima; Ibn Hishām, III, 104. 169 Is.āba, IV, 615. 32 Arabian Idol Worship Salima.170 It is noteworthy that only one of these three was a full member of the Salima. Mu֒ādh ibn Jabal was not of the Salima, being descended from Udayy ibn Sa֒d, the brother of Salima ibn Sa֒d. ֒Abdallāh ibn Unays al-Juhanı̄ was a client (h.alı̄f ) of the Salima. As has already been noted, Mu֒ādh ibn ֒Amr ibn al-Jamūh. belonged to a leading Salima family. ֒Amr ibn al-Jamūh.’s idol and the idols belonging to other noblemen were one level above the household idols. They had names, which the latter did not, and the same is true of the idols of higher levels to be discussed below. Perhaps the noblemen’s idols were larger or more richly decorated than the household idols.171 They were probably anthropoid (or were interpreted anthropomorphically): the young attackers of ֒Amr ibn al-Jamūh.’s idol threw it on its head; at some stage ֒Amr hung a sword on it and asked it to defend itself.172 ֒Amr’s idol had a sanctuary (bayt) of its own,173 and the same was probably the case with the idols of noblemen in general. With regard to this specific idol it is reported that whenever people wanted to talk to it (i.e., consult it), an old woman would stand behind it and answer on its behalf.174 2.3 Idols belonging to bat.ns One level above the nobleman’s idol we find the idol of the bat.n, which also had a name. Bat.ns mentioned as owners of idols were the subdivisions of the Nabı̄t group (Aws), i.e., ֒Abd al-Ashhal, H . āritha and Z.afar; the Salima; and the Najjār subdivisions, ֒Adı̄ ibn al-Najjār, Dı̄nār ibn al-Najjār and Mālik ibn al-Najjār (Khazraj). Many bat.ns in Medina are not listed among the owners of idols, simply because the list is incomplete. The bat.n’s idol was placed in a sanctuary (bayt) and belonged to the whole bat.n (li-jamā ֒at al-bat.n). Sacrifices were offered to it.175 One expects the sanctuary to have been converted into a mosque. An association between bat.ns and worship can also be found elsewhere: in Kūfa there were mosques belonging to bat.ns of the Kinda.176 170 Ibn Sa֒d, III, 580, 583; Ibn Qudāma, Istibs.ār , 136–37, 165, 166; Is.āba, IV, 15–16 (֒Abdallāh ibn Unays). The reports on the breaking of the idols by the three do not mention Mu֒ādh ibn ֒Amr ibn al-Jamūh.. 171 Decoration of idols in general is suggested by the saying ah.san mina l-dumya wa-mina l-zūn wa-humā l-s.anam; Maydānı̄, Amthāl , I, 227. 172 Ibn Hishām, II, 95–96. 173 Dakhalū bayt .sanamihi ; Nubalā ֓, I, 254. This is also suggested by the words wa-dakhala ֒alā Manāf ; ibid., 253. 174 Fa-ajābat ֒anhu; Abū Nu֒aym, Dalā ֓il , 311 (called here Manāt, read: Manāf); Lecker, “Idol worship”, 337. 175 Regarding the association between bat.ns and idols cf. Abbās, “Two hitherto unpublished texts”, 12: wa-kānat awthānu l-֒arab idh dhāka musnada ilā l-Ka ֒ba thalāthami ֓a wa-sittı̄na wathanan, li-kull h.ayy mina l ֒arab wathan, wa-kāna yakūnu fı̄ l-h.ayyi l-but.ūnu l-kathı̄ra mina l-֒arab, fa-kāna li-kull bat.n minhā wathan. 176 Lecker, “Kinda on the eve of Islam”, 344–45. Arabian Idol Worship 2.4 33 Huzam One level above the bat.ns in the tribal organization of Medina we find the major subdivisions of the Aws and Khazraj. For the time being I have been able to find only one idol in this category: the H . ārith ibn al-Khazraj had an idol called Huzam, located in their majlis, or place of assembly similarly called Huzam, in wadi But.h.ān. One expects the other subdivisions of the Aws and Khazraj to have had similar idols.177 Unlike the bat.n’s idol which had a sanctuary, the idol of the major subdivision was located in the tribal place of assembly. There is no mention of sacrifices, but since sacrifices were offered to the idols of the bat.ns, one would expect to find them in this category as well. 2.5 Al-Khamı̄s One level above the major subdivisions of the Khazraj (and the Aws) we find the Khazraj themselves. There is evidence of an idol worshipped by the Khazraj, or indeed by the Khazraj and the Sulaym tribe whose territory was not far from Medina. The idol’s name was al-Khamı̄s and it appears in a verse attributed to the Prophet’s grandfather, ֒Abd al-Mut.t.alib, who swore by it.178 2.6 Al-Sa֒ı̄da One level above the idol of the Khazraj we find al-Sa֒ı̄da. Located on Mt. Uh.ud near Medina, it was worshipped by the Azd and the whole of the Qud.ā֒a (the Sa֒d Hudhaym are specifically mentioned), with the exception of the Banū Wabara. On this level and the next one there is evidence of custodians and of a talbiya: the custodians of al-Sa֒ı̄da were the Banū l-֒Ajlān.179 In the period immediately preceding the rise of Islam most of the Qud.ā֒a did not live near Medina, although Medina had a significant population belonging to the Qud.ā֒a branch of Balı̄. But we are mainly concerned here with the Azd, since the Aws and Khazraj who were of the Azd must have been among the worshippers of this idol. The Aws and Khazraj who were the more recent settlers in Medina joined the older population of the Balı̄ in its worship of al-Sa֒ı̄da. Unsurprisingly, the custodians belonged to the older population. The ֒Ajlān (a bat.n) had a client relationship (h.alı̄f ) with 177 Cf. the expression majālis al-ans.ār ; Ibn ֒Asākir, XLI, 56. There is no reason to assume that their majālis were abolished after the advent of Islam; the idols were of course removed from them. 178 Abligh banı̄ l-Najjāri in ji ֓tahum annı̄ minhum wa-֓bnuhum wa-l-Khamı̄s; T . abarı̄, I, 1085; Ansāb al-ashrāf , I, 70; Munammaq, 85. Cf. T abarı̄, trans., VI, 12 (“The meaning of . wa-l-khamı̄s is somewhat obscure”). Elsewhere the verse is attributed to al-Mut.t.alib ibn ֒Abd Manāf; Ibn Sa֒d, I, 82–83; Lecker, Sulaym, 99 (pointing out the possibility that “Khazraj” refers to both the Khazraj and Aws; As.nām, 14; Fākihı̄, IV, 236). 179 Muh.abbar , 316–17; Kister, “Labbayka”, 56. 34 Arabian Idol Worship the ֒Amr ibn ֒Awf, more precisely the Banū Zayd ibn Mālik ibn ֒Awf ibn ֒Amr ibn ֒Awf.180 The worshippers of al-Sa֒ı̄da had a talbiya of their own.181 2.7 Manāt After al-Khamı̄s which was worshipped by the Khazraj and al-Sa֒ı̄da which was probably worshipped by both the Aws and Khazraj, we move one level higher to arrive at the most important idol of these two tribes, namely Manāt.182 It was located in Qudayd near al-Mushallal not far from the coast. According to some, it was a rock in Qudayd belonging to the Hudhayl, while others said that Manāt belonged to the Hudhayl and Khuzā֒a. But in several more reliable reports which are partly supported by coinciding evidence, the Azd and Qud.ā֒a are mentioned as its worshippers. It was worshipped by the Ans.ār, the Azd Shanū֓a and other Azdı̄s, among them the groups of Ghassān (who also belonged to the Azd).183 The Sa֒d Hudhaym of the Qud.ā֒a are again mentioned specifically among its worshippers. At the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca the Aws and Khazraj, together with their followers from the Arabs of Yathrib and others, would not cut their hair with the other pilgrims, but would remain near Manāt (wa-aqāmū ֒indahu) and cut their hair there. They believed that the pilgrimage was not complete without this. Also the Quraysh and all the Arabs worshipped Manāt. On his way to conquer Mecca in 8/630 Muh.ammad sent ֒Alı̄ to destroy Manāt. He brought back as part of the spoils two swords which the king of Ghassān al-H . ārith ibn Abı̄ Shamir had given the idol, Mikhdham and Rasūb. But elsewhere it is reported that ֒Alı̄ found the swords at al-Fals, the idol of the T.ay֓, when he destroyed it. The custodians of Manāt were the Ghat.ārı̄f from the Azd.184 The Ghat.ārı̄f are the family (āl ) of al-H . ārith ibn ֒Ubaydallāh ibn ֒Āmir 180 Ibn al-Kalbı̄, Nasab Ma ֒add , 711–12, listing no less than six members of the ֒Ajlān who were Muh.ammad’s Companions; Ibn H . azm, Ansāb, 443; Lecker, Muslims, Jews and Pagans, 135–37, and index. Serjeant (“Dawlah”, 143, n. 49) suggests that ֒Ajlān be identified with “ ֒Ajlān b. ֒Abdullāh of Rabı̄֒a” (he refers to Ibn Durayd, Ishtiqāq, 296; read: 297); but this is not possible. Besides, Ibn Durayd speaks of the Qays ֒Aylān, not of the Rabı̄֒a. 181 Kister, “Labbayka”, 52 (read Sa֒ı̄da instead of Sa֒ı̄d). In the talbiya the pilgrims declared that they did not come to the idol for (material) benefit nor for gain; cf. Tritton, “Notes on religion in early Arabia”, 194. This is confirmed by the fact that the Qud.ā֒a and some tribes of the Azd were among the h.illa tribes that did not engage in trade during their pilgrimage; Ya֒qūbı̄, Ta ֓rı̄kh, I, 257. When they were on pilgrimage, they bought only meat; Muh.abbar , 181. According to Muh.abbar , 179, the h.illa included the Qud.ā֒a (with the exception of ֒Ilāf and Janāb) and the Ans.ār. Wellhausen, Reste, 65, argues, following the verse in Yāqūt, s.v. al֒Uzzā, 116b, that al-Sa֒ı̄da was originally a nickname of al-֒Uzzā. See also As.nām, 19. Another idol with the same name was located near Sindād or on the nearby bank of the Euphrates; Yāqūt, s.v. al-Sa֒ı̄da. 182 Krone, Die altarabische Gottheit al-Lāt, 521–39. 183 Lecker, “The levying of taxes” = no. I in this volume. 184 Yāqūt, s.v. Manāt; As.nām, 13–15; Muh.abbar , 316. Wellhausen (Reste, 28) argues that two pilgrimages are incorrectly conflated here, one to Mecca and another to Manāt. Krone, Die Arabian Idol Worship 35 al-Ghit.rı̄f,185 or Banū al-H . ārith ibn ֒Abdallāh ibn Yashkur ibn Mubashshir from the Azd. Their land was at the southernmost part of the Sarāt mountains,186 in an area called al-H . azz. The Ghat.ārı̄f conquered al-H . azz from the Amalekites, 187 and hence the name al-Ghat.ārı̄f or the noble ones. The custodians were probably a family of the Ghat.ārı̄f that emigrated to northern Arabia. While the reports on the location of Manāt are consistent, its worshippers are given as either the Hudhayl, the Hudhayl and Khuzā֒a or the Azd, including the Aws and Khazraj. The Hudhayl and Khuzā֒a might reflect an earlier stage in the worship of Manāt, before the arrival of the Azd from the Yemen. In any case, in the immediate pre-Islamic period Manāt was worshipped, among other Azdı̄s, by the Aws and Khazraj. This is borne out by a report which originated with a great-grandson of Sa֒d ibn ֒Ubāda, ֒Abd al-Malik ibn ֒Abd al-֒Azı̄z ibn Sa֒ı̄d ibn Sa֒d ibn ֒Ubāda, in praise of his fathers. Sa֒d’s grandfather Dulaym used to donate ten slaughter camels to Manāt every year. Sa֒d’s father, ֒Ubāda, followed suit and Sa֒d himself did the same before his conversion to Islam. Sa֒d’s son, Qays, used to donate the same number of camels to the Ka֒ba.188 The report is not concerned with idol worship as such but with generosity and leadership. It is noteworthy that Sa֒d ibn ֒Ubāda himself, before his conversion to Islam, used to donate camels to Manāt. In other words, the cult of Manāt was not a matter of remote history but continued to the very advent of Islam. Manāt concludes the discussion of the idols worshipped by the people of Medina. A man of the Aws or Khazraj had a household idol at home; noblemen had idols which were probably more impressive than the household idols; the bat.n as a whole had an idol kept in a special sanctuary; the subdivision of Aws or Khazraj had an idol in its majlis; the Khazraj as a whole worshipped a special idol (and the Aws presumably had an idol of their own); both the Aws and Khazraj worshipped al-Sa֒ı̄da on Mt. Uh.ud; and finally the Aws and Khazraj concluded their pilgrimage near their main idol, Manāt. In all this there is no indication of the decline of idol worship on the eve of Islam. Quite to the contrary, it appears that the whole life cycle of a Medinan, altarabische Gottheit al-Lāt, 537, says that the pilgrimage to Manāt could have been attached to the Meccan pilgrimage. On the sacrifice of hair cf. ibid., 415–18. Wāqidı̄, II, 870, reports that Sa֒d ibn Zayd al-Ashhalı̄ was sent by Muh.ammad to demolish Manāt in Mushallal. The “Bakr” mentioned in the talbiya of those who worshipped Manāt and/or in that of the Qays ֒Aylān were not the Bakr ibn Wā֓il but the Bakr ibn ֒Abd Manāt ibn Kināna, on whom see Ibn H . azm, Ansāb, 180–82; cf. Kister, “Labbayka”, 45. The Bakr ibn ֒Abd Manāt ibn Kināna were among the h.illa tribes; Muh.abbar , 179. This would explain the threat they posed to pilgrims heading for Mecca. See also Muh.abbar , 318; Kister, “Labbayka”, 57 (Hubal belonged to the Bakr, Mālik and Milkān and the rest of the Kināna). 185 H . assān, Dı̄wān, II, 263 (the affair of Abū Uzayhir; above, 23). 186 On which see EI 2 , s.v. al-Sarāt. 187 Yāqūt, s.v. al-H . azz. 188 Istı̄ ֒āb, II, 595; Ibn ֒Asākir, XLIX, 416–17. 36 Arabian Idol Worship whether of the Khazraj or the Aws, was associated with idolatry. Ibn Ish.āq’s opinion about the influence of monotheism on the Arabs on the eve of Islam was “that it was merely superficial; the Arabs were illiterate and what they heard from Jews and Christians had no effect on their lives”. Guillaume, adducing this view, was surprised: “It must be remembered that he was talking about Western Arabia, and one would have thought that the influence of the synagogue or synagogues in Medina and its suburbs would have been considerable, especially when one bears in mind the close agreement between the Koran and the Talmud in teaching and terminology”.189 But Ibn Ish.āq accurately describes the situation in Medina on the eve of the Hijra.190 The power of idol worship in Arabia must not be underestimated. The evidence adduced above shows that idol worship in Mecca, Medina and among the nomads prospered on the eve of Islam. The evidence for Medina is particularly rich and idols were found on all levels of tribal organization. This must have been the case in all parts of Arabia.191 For ten frustrating years Muh.ammad attempted to convert his fellow Meccans to Islam. Their resistance was motivated not only by fear for their commercial interests. While the intensity of their spiritual attachment to the idols cannot be gauged, clearly idols played a major role in their lives. The accounts of the demolition of idols often provide Islamic writers with 189 Guillaume, New Light, 6–7. See also ibid., 21: “The Arabs were illiterate. They did not study writing. All that they knew of heaven and hell, the resurrection, the mission of prophets and so on was the little they had heard from Jews and Christians. This teaching had no effect on their lives”. In Ibn Hishām, I, 225 (< ֒Ās.im ibn ֒Umar ibn Qatāda), the Arabic text is as follows: inna mimmā da ֒ānā ilā l-islām ma ֒a rah.mati llāh wa-hudāhu lanā la-mā kunnā nasma ֒u min rijāl yahūd, wa-kunnā ahl shirk as.h.āb awthān wa-kānū ahl kitāb, ֒indahum ֒ilm laysa lanā . . . . 190 Serjeant, in his review of Guillaume’s New Life, in BSOAS 26 (1963), 427–28, remarks with regard to Ibn Ish.āq’s view on the superficial influence of monotheism that it “strikes the reviewer as very likely to be near the truth, and the existence of synagogues in ancient west Arabia is no more likely to have influenced the religious attitudes of tribesfolk than those in the Yemen (which were numerous enough until some twelve years ago) influenced the dominant Muslim population’s outlook though relations were in other ways very close”. 191 Evidence of the persistence of idol worship after the advent of Islam is inconclusive. Ibn al-Jawzı̄ (Talbı̄s iblı̄s, 59) reports that at the time of the last Sassanian emperor, Yazdjird, idols were worshipped and some people apostatized (wa-raja ֒a man raja ֒a ֒ani l-islām). Elsewhere we find that three people found with idols in an underground place of passage (sarab) were brought before ֒Alı̄ who ordered them burnt alive; T . abarı̄, Tahdhı̄b al-āthār (Musnad ֒Alı̄), 81. But there is no certainty that the three were Arabs. The next report in the same source speaks of people of the Zut.t. whom ֒Alı̄ had burnt alive for the same offence, and it appears that the three mentioned earlier were also non-Arabs. Incidentally, Mu֒āwiya was accused of having exported anthropomorphic brass (or gold) “idols” to Hind and Sind (as.nām min .sufr tamāthı̄l al-rijāl). They were shipped down the Tigris and sold on his behalf; Ansāb al-ashrāf , IV,i, 130. When Sicily was conquered at the time of Mu֒āwiya, “idols” of gold and silver adorned with jewels which had been taken as spoils were sent to the caliph who in turn sent them to Hind via al-Bas.ra to be sold there; Futūh., 235. These two reports are probably linked. Arabian Idol Worship 37 an opportunity to ridicule the polytheists and their cult. But the shock and fear attributed to the polytheists indicate their belief in the power of their idols. The acts of destruction were not always peaceful and custodians were sometimes prepared to sacrifice their lives rather than abandon their idols. Appendix: The Meccan maker of household idols Some details are available about a Meccan carpenter called Abū Tijrāt192 who carved wooden idols. He was a Christian (nas.rānı̄). His father was called Yasār Abū Fukayha after a daughter of his named Fukayha.193 Abū Tijrāt was the sonin-law of a member of the Umayyad family, Mu֒āwiya ibn al-Mughı̄ra ibn Abı̄ l-֒Ās.; his Christian faith is mentioned to the detriment of this Umayyad family.194 Regarding his activity as a manufacturer of idols we rely on Wāqidı̄. On a closer inspection of this account one realizes that something is missing. Having reported on ֒Ikrima’s destruction of every idol he found out about (above, 4), Wāqidı̄ says: wa-kāna Abū Tijrāt ya ֒maluhā fı̄ l-jāhiliyya wa-yabı̄ ֒uhā, qāla Sa ֒d [read: Sa֒ı̄d] ibn ֒Amr : akhbaranı̄ [the word abı̄ is missing] annahu kāna yarāhu ya ֒maluhā wa-yabı̄ ֒uhā. Wa-lam yakun rajul min Quraysh bi-Makka illā wa-fı̄ baytihi .sanam. Wāqidı̄’s source is ֒Abdallāh ibn Yazı̄d [al-Hudhalı̄] < Sa֒ı̄d ibn ֒Amr.195 Sa֒ı̄d ibn ֒Amr’s informant was probably his father. Elsewhere Wāqidı̄ quotes from ֒Abdallāh ibn Yazı̄d < Sa֒ı̄d ibn ֒Amr < his father, a report on the worship of Hudhayl’s idol, Suwā֒. As in the passage discussed here, the father’s testimony is an eye witness account: h.ad.artu ma ֒a rijāl min qawmı̄ .sanamanā Suwā ֒ . . . .196 The same is probably true of Sa֒ı̄d’s eye witness account concerning Abū Tijrāt’s manufacturing of idols: it was received from his father, ֒Amr.197 192 Wāqidı̄/Wellhausen, 350, has erroneously Abū Bajrāt (“Abu Bajrāt machte und verkaufte sie; es wurde mit ihnen ein lebhafter Handel an die Beduinen getrieben”). 193 Ibn Sa֒d, VIII, 246. In another version his father’s name was Aflah.; Is.āba, I, 100. 194 Wa-hum yu ֒ābūna bi-dhālika; Ansāb al-ashrāf , IV,i, 479. 195 Wāqidı̄, II, 869–870. 196 Ibn Sa֒d, I, 167–68; above, 8. 197 Abū Nu֒aym’s Companion dictionary has it that ֒Amr’s father was called Sa֒ı̄d; Is.āba, IV, 639. 38 Arabian Idol Worship Bibliography Abbās, Ihsān, “Two hitherto unpublished texts on pre-Islamic religion”, in Actes du 8me Congres de l’Union Européenne des Arabisants et Islamisants (1976), Aix-en-Provence: Edisud, n.d., 7–16. Abū Nu֒aym, Dalā ֓il — Abū Nu֒aym Ah.mad ibn ֒Abdallāh al-Is.bahānı̄. Dalā ֓il al-nubuwwa, ed. Muh.ammad Rawwās Qal֒ajı̄ and ֒Abd al-Barr ֒Abbās, Beirut: Dār al-Nafā֓is, 1406/1986. Abū Nu֒aym, Is.bahān — Dhikr akhbār Is.bahān, ed. Sven Dedering, Leiden: Brill, 1934. 2 vols. Abū Nu֒aym, S.ah.āba — Ma ֒rifat al-s.ah.āba, ed. Muh.ammad Rād.ı̄ ibn H . ājj ֒Uthmān, Medina: Maktabat al-Dār and Riyadh: Maktabat al-H . aramayni, 1408/1988. Aghānı̄ — Abū l-Faraj al-Is.fahānı̄. Kitāb al-aghānı̄, Cairo: Dār al-Kutub, 1345/1927– 1394/1974. 24 vols. Ah.mad — Ah.mad ibn H . anbal. Musnad , Cairo: al-Mat.ba֒a al-Maymaniyya, 1313/1895. Reprint Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmı̄–Dār S.ādir, n.d. Andrae, Mohammed — T. Andrae. Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, trans. Th. Menzel, New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Originally appeared under the title Mohammed, sein Leben und sein Glaube, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1932. Ansāb al-ashrāf — Ah.mad ibn Yah.yā ibn Jābir al-Balādhurı̄. Ansāb al-ashrāf , I, ed. Muh.ammad H . amı̄dullāh, Cairo: Dār al-Ma֒ārif, 1959; IV,i, ed. I. ֒Abbās, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1400/1979. Arafat, W.N. “Fact and fiction in the history of pre-Islamic idol-worship”, in Islamic Quarterly 12 (1968), 9–21. As.nām — Hishām ibn Muh.ammad, Ibn al-Kalbı̄. al-As.nām, ed. Ah.mad Zakı̄ Bāshā, Cairo: Dār al-Kutub, 1343/1924. Azraqı̄ — Abū l-Walı̄d al-Azraqı̄. Akhbār Makka wa-mā jā ֓a fı̄hā min al-āthār , ed. Rushdı̄ Malh.as, [Beirut:] Dār al-Andalus, n.d. Bad ֓ wa-ta ֓rı̄kh — Mut.ahhar ibn T . āhir al-Maqdisı̄. al-Bad ֓ wa-l-ta ֓rı̄kh, ed. Cl. Huart, Paris 1899–1919. Reprint Baghdad: Maktabat al-Muthannā, n. d. 3 vols. Baghawı̄, Tafsı̄r — al-H . usayn ibn Mas֒ūd al-Farrā֓ al-Baghawı̄. Ma ֒ālim al-tanzı̄l , on margin of Khāzin, Tafsı̄r. Bayhaqı̄, Dalā ֓il — Abū Bakr Ah.mad ibn al-H . usayn al-Bayhaqı̄. Dalā ֓il al-nubuwwa, ed. ֒Abd al-Mu֒t.ı̄ Qal֒ajı̄, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-֒Ilmiyya, 1405/1985. 7 vols. BSOAS — Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Buhl, Leben — F. Buhl. Das Leben Muhammeds 2 , trans. Hans Heinrich Schaeder, Leipzig 1930. Reprint Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1955. Originally appeared in Danish, 1903. Caskel — W. Caskel u. G. Strenziok. Ǧamharat an-Nasab: Das genealogische Werk des Hišām ibn Muh.ammad al-Kalbı̄, Leiden: Brill, 1966. 2 vols. Crone, Meccan Trade — P. Crone. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987. Dāraqut.nı̄, Sunan — ֒Alı̄ ibn ֒Umar al-Dāraqut.nı̄. Sunan, ed. ֒Abdallāh Hāshim Yamānı̄ al-Madanı̄, Medina: al-Madanı̄, 1386/1966. 2 vols. EI 2 — The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd. edition. van Ess, J. “Die Pest von Emmaus: Theologie und Geschichte in der Frühzeit des Islams”, in Oriens 36 (2001), 248–67. Fahd, T. Le panthéon de l’Arabie centrale a la veille de l’Hégire, Paris: P. Geuthner, 1968. Fā ֓iq — Abū l-Qāsim Mah.mūd ibn ֒Umar al-Zamakhsharı̄. al-Fā ֓iq fı̄ gharı̄b al-h.adı̄th, ed. ֒Alı̄ Muh.ammad al-Bijāwı̄ and Muh.ammad Abū l-Fad.l Ibrāhı̄m, Cairo: ֒Īsā al-Bābı̄ alH . alabı̄, 1971. 4 vols. Arabian Idol Worship 39 Fākihı̄ — Abū ֒Abdallāh Muh.ammad ibn Ish.āq al-Fākihı̄. Akhbār Makka, ed. ֒Abd alMalik ibn ֒Abdallāh ibn Duhaysh, Mecca: Maktabat wa-Mat.ba֒at al-Nahd.a al-H . adı̄tha, 1407/1987. 6 vols. Fath. al-bārı̄ — Ibn H . ajar al-֒Asqalānı̄. Fath. al-bārı̄ sharh. .sah.ı̄h. al-Bukhārı̄, Būlāq 1301/1884. Reprint Beirut: Dār al-Ma֒rifa, n.d.. 14 vols. Fitan — Nu֒aym ibn H . ammād. al-Fitan, ed. Suhayl Zakkār, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1414/1993. Futūh. — al-Balādhurı̄. Futūh. al-buldān, ed. M.J. de Goeje, Leiden: Brill, 1863–66. GAS — F. Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, Leiden: Brill, 1967 ff. Goldfeld, I. “ ֒Umyānis the idol of Khawlān”, in Israel Oriental Studies 3 (1973), 108–19. Guillaume, A. New Light on the Life of Muhammad , Manchester: Manchester University Press, [1960]. Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph No. 1. —, “Stroking an idol”, in BSOAS 27 (1964), 430. Hamdānı̄, S.ifa — al-H . asan ibn Ah.mad ibn Ya֒qūb al-Hamdānı̄. S.ifat jazı̄rat al-֒arab, ed. ֒ ֒ ֓ al-Akwa , S.an ā : Maktabat al-Irshād, 1410/1990. H . assān, Dı̄wān — H . assān ibn Thābit, Dı̄wān, ed. W. ֒Arafat, London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series, 1971. Hawting, G.R. The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Henninger, J. “Pre-Islamic bedouin religion”, in Merlin L. Swartz, Studies on Islam, New York–Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, 3–22. Originally published under the title “La religion bédouine préislamique”, in F. Gabrieli (ed.), L’anctica società beduina, Rome: Instituto di Studi Orientali, 1959, 115–40. Reprinted in Peters (ed.), The Arabs and Arabia on the Eve of Islam, 109–28. H ilya — Abū Nu֒aym Ah.mad ibn ֒Abdallāh al-Is.fahānı̄. H . . ilyat al-awliyā ֓, Cairo: al-Khānjı̄, n.d. Reprint Beirut, 1387/1967. 10 vols. H . imyarı̄, Rawd. — Muh.ammad ibn ֒Abd al-Mun֒im al-H . imyarı̄. al-Rawd. al-mi ֒.tār fı̄ khabar al-aqt.ār , ed. Ih.sān ֒Abbās, Beirut: Maktabat Lubnān, 1975. Höfner, M. “Die vorislamischen Religionen Arabiens”, in H. Gese, M. Höfner and K. Rudolph (eds.), Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer , Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970, 233–402. Ibn ֒Abd al-Barr, Tamhı̄d — Ibn ֒Abd al-Barr al-Namarı̄. al-Tamhı̄d li-mā fı̄ l-muwat.ta . ֓ mina l-ma ֒ānı̄ wa-l-asānı̄d , ed. Mus.t.afā al-֒Alawı̄ et al., Rabat: al-Mat.ba֒a al-Malakiyya, 1387/1967–1412/1992. 25 vols. Ibn ֒Adı̄, D . u ֒afā ֓ — ֒Abdallāh ibn ֒Adı̄ al-Jurjānı̄. al-Kāmil fı̄ d.u ֒afā ֓ al-rijāl , Beirut: D . ār al-Fikr, 1404/1984. 7 vols. Ibn ֒Asākir — Ibn ֒Asākir, ֒Alı̄ ibn al-H . asan. Ta ֓rı̄kh madı̄nat Dimashq, ed. ֒Umar ibn Gharāma al-֒Amrawı̄, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1415/1995–1419/1998. 80 vols. Ibn Bashkuwāl, Ghawāmid. — Abū l-Qāsim Khalaf ibn ֒Abd al-Malik, Ibn Bashkuwāl. Ghawāmid. al-asmā ֓ al-mubhama, ed. ֒Izz al-Dı̄n ֒Alı̄ al-Sayyid and Muh.ammad Kamāl al-Dı̄n ֒Izz al-Dı̄n, Beirut: ֒Ālam al-Kutub, 1407/1987. Ibn Durayd, Ishtiqāq — Abū Bakr Muh.ammad ibn al-H . asan, Ibn Durayd. al-Ishtiqāq, ed. ֒Abd al-Salām Hārūn, Cairo: al-Khānjı̄, 1378/1958. Ibn Durayd, Jamharat al-lugha — ed. Ramzı̄ Ba֒labakkı̄, Beirut: Dār al-֒Ilm li-l-Malāyı̄n, 1987–88. 3 vols. Ibn H . azm, Ansāb — Ibn H . azm al-Andalusı̄. Jamharat ansāb al-֒arab, ed. ֒Abd al-Salām Hārūn, Cairo: Dār al-Ma֒ārif, 1382/1962. Ibn H . ibbān, Ta ֓rı̄kh al-s.ah.āba — Abū H . ātim Muh.ammad ibn Ah.mad al-Bustı̄, Ibn H . ibbān. Ta ֓rı̄kh al-s.ah.āba lladhı̄na ruwiya ֒anhum al-akhbār , ed. B. al-D innāwı̄, Beirut: Dār . al-Kutub al-֒Ilmiyya, 1408/1988. —, Thiqāt, Hyderabad: Dā֓irat al-Ma֒ārif al-֒Uthmāniyya, 1403/1983. Reprint Beirut: Mu֓assasat al-Kutub al-Thaqāfiyya, 1415/1995. 10 vols. 40 Arabian Idol Worship Ibn Hishām — Abū Muh.ammad ֒Abd al-Malik, Ibn Hishām. al-Sı̄ra al-nabawiyya, ed. Mus.t.afā al-Saqqā, Ibrāhı̄m al-Ibyārı̄ and ֒Abd al-H . afı̄z. Shalabı̄, Cairo: Mus.t.afā al-Bābı̄ al-H . alabı̄, 1355/1936. Reprint Beirut: Ih.yā֓ al-Turāth al-֒Arabı̄, 1391/1971. 4 vols. Ibn al-Jawzı̄, S.ifat al-s.afwa — ed. Fākhūrı̄ and Qal֒ajı̄, Beirut: Dār al-Ma֒rifa, 1399/1979. 4 vols. Ibn al-Kalbı̄, Jamharat al-nasab — Hishām ibn Muh.ammad, Ibn al-Kalbı̄. Jamharat al-nasab, ed. Nājı̄ H . asan, Beirut: ֒Ālam al-Kutub–Maktabat al-Nahd.a al-֒Arabiyya, 1407/1986. Ibn al-Kalbı̄, Nasab Ma ֒add — Nasab Ma ֒add wa-l-yaman al-kabı̄r , ed. Nājı̄ H . asan, Beirut: ֒Ālam al-Kutub—Maktabat al-Nahd.a al-֒Arabiyya, 1408/1988. 2 vols. Ibn Qāni֒, Mu ֒jam al-s.ah.āba — ֒Abd al-Bāqı̄ Ibn Qāni֒. Mu ֒jam al-s.ah.āba, ed. S.alāh. ibn Sālim al-Mas.rātı̄, Medina: Maktabat al-Ghurabā֓ al-Athariyya, 1417/1997. 3 vols. Ibn Qudāma, Istibs.ār — Muwaffaq al-Dı̄n ֒Abdallāh al-Maqdisı̄, Ibn Qudāma. al-Istibs.ār fı̄ nasab al-s.ah.āba min al-ans.ār , ed. ֒Alı̄ Nuwayhid., Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1392/1972. Ibn Sa֒d, al-T . abaqa al-rābi ֒a — Muh.ammad ibn Sa֒d. al-t.abaqa al-rābi ֒a min al-s.ah.āba, ed. ֒Abd al-֒Azı̄z ֒Abdallāh al-Salūmı̄, Taif: Maktabat al-S.iddı̄q, 1416/1995. 2 vols. (Silsilat al-Nāqis. min T . abaqāt Ibn Sa֒d.) ֒ Ibn Sa d — al-T . abaqāt al-kubrā, Beirut: Dār S.ādir–Dār Bayrūt, 1380/1960–1388/1968. 8 vols. Ibn Shabba — ֒Umar Ibn Shabba. Ta ֓rı̄kh al-Madı̄na al-munawwara, ed. Fahı̄m Muh.ammad Shaltūt, n.p., [1399/1979]. Reprint Beirut: Dār al-Turāth–al-Dār al-Islāmiyya, 1410/1990. Is.āba — Abū l-Fad.l Ah.mad ibn ֒Alı̄ al-֒Asqalānı̄, Ibn H . ajar. al-Is.āba fı̄ tamyı̄z al-s.ah.āba, ed. ֒Alı̄ Muh.ammad al-Bijāwı̄, Cairo: Dār Nahd.at Mis.r, 1392/1972. 8 vols. Istı̄ ֒āb — Yūsuf ibn ֒Abdallāh al-Namarı̄, Ibn ֒Abd al-Barr. al-Istı̄ ֒āb fı̄ ma ֒rifat al-as.h.āb, ed. ֒Alı̄ Muh.ammad al-Bijāwı̄, Cairo: Maktabat Nahd.at Mis.r, n. d. JESHO — Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. JSAI — Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. al-Kattānı̄, al-Risāla al-mustat.rafa bayān mashhūr kutub al-sunna al-musharrafa, n.p., n.d. Reprint Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyyāt al-Azhariyya, n.d. al-Khat.ı̄b, Mubhama — Ah.mad ibn ֒Alı̄, al-Khat.ı̄b al-Baghdadı̄. Kitāb al-asmā ֓ al-mubhama fı̄ l-anbā ֓ al-muh.kama, ed. ֒Izz al-Dı̄n ֒Alı̄ al-Sayyid, Cairo: al-Khānjı̄, 1413/1992. Khāzin, Tafsı̄r — al-Khāzin, ֒Alā֓ al-Dı̄n ֒Alı̄ ibn Muh.ammad al-Baghdādı̄. Lubāb al-ta ֓wı̄l fı̄ ma ֒ānı̄ al-tanzı̄l , Cairo: al-Istiqāma, 1381 A.H. Reprint Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, n.d. 4 vols. Kister, M.J. “ ‘And he was born circumcised’: some notes on circumcision in H . adı̄th”, in Oriens 34 (1994), 10–30. Reprinted in idem, Concepts and Ideas at the Dawn of Islam, Aldershot 1997, no. VII. —, “ ֒Labbayka, allāhumma, labbayka . . . ’: on a monotheistic aspect of a Jāhiliyya practice”, in JSAI 2 (1980), 33–57. Reprinted in idem, Society and Religion from Djāhiliyya to Islam, Aldershot 1990, no. I. —, “Mecca and Tamı̄m” — “Mecca and Tamı̄m (aspects of their tribal relations)”, in JESHO 8 (1965), 63–113. Reprinted, with additional notes, in idem, Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, London 1980, no. I. —, “Some reports concerning Mecca from Jāhiliyya to Islam”, in JESHO 15 (1972), 61–93. Reprinted, with additional notes, in idem, Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, no. II. —, “Some reports concerning al-T . ā֓if”, in JSAI 1 (1979), 1–18. Reprinted in idem, Studies in Jāhiliyya and early Islam, no. XI. Kohlberg, E. “Vision and the Imams”, in É. Chaumont (ed.), Autour du regard: Mélanges Gimaret, Leuven: Peeters, 2003, 125–57. Krone, S. Die altarabische Gottheit al-Lāt, Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1992. (Heidelberger Orientalistische Studien, Band 23.) Lammens, H. L’Arabie occidentale avant l’Hégire, Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1928. Arabian Idol Worship 41 Lane — E.W. Lane. Arabic-English Lexicon, London: Williams and Norgate, 1863–93. Reprint Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1984. 2 vols. Lecker, M. The Banū Sulaym: A Contribution to the Study of Early Islam, Jerusalem: Institute of Asian and African Studies, 1989. —, “Idol worship in pre-Islamic Medina (Yathrib)”, in Le Muséon 106 (1993), 331–46. Reprinted in Peters (ed.), The Arabs and Arabia on the Eve of Islam, 129–44. Also reprinted in Lecker, Jews and Arabs, no. I. —, Jews and Arabs in Pre- and Early Islamic Arabia, Aldershot 1998. —, “Kinda on the eve of Islam and during the ridda”, in JRAS (1994), 333–56. Reprinted in idem, Jews and Arabs, no. XV. —, “The levying of taxes for the Sassanians in Pre-Islamic Medina (Yathrib)”, in JSAI 27 (2002), 109–26. (Festschrift Sh. Shaked.) = no. I in this volume. —, Muslims, Jews and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina, Leiden: Brill, 1995. (Islamic History and Civilization.) —, Sulaym — The Banū Sulaym: A Contribution to the Study of Early Islam, Jerusalem: Institute of Asian and African Studies, 1989. —, “Were customs dues levied at the time of the Prophet Muh.ammad?”, in al-Qantara 22 (2001), 19–43. = no. VII in this volume. —, “Zayd b. Thābit, ‘a Jew with two sidelocks’: Judaism and literacy in pre-Islamic Medina (Yathrib)”, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 56 (1997), 259–73. Reprinted in idem, Jews and Arabs, no. III. Levi Della Vida, G. Les sémites et leur role dans l’histoire religieuse, Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1938. Majma ֒ al-zawā ֓id — ֒Alı̄ ibn Abı̄ Bakr al-Haythamı̄. Majma ֒ al-zawā ֓id wa-manba ֒ alfawā ֓id , Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-֒Arabı̄, 1967. 10 vols. Manāsik — Kitāb al-manāsik wa-amākin .turuq al-h.ajj wa-ma ֒ālim al-jazı̄ra, ed. H . amad alJāsir, Riyadh: al-Yamāma, 1401/1981. Margoliouth, Mohammed — D.S. Margoliouth. Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905. Maydānı̄, Amthāl — Ah.mad ibn Muh.ammad al-Maydānı̄. Majma ֒ al-amthāl , ed. Muh.ammad Muh.yı̄ l-Dı̄n ֒Abd al-H . amı̄d, Cairo: Mat.ba֒at al-Sunna al-Muh.ammadiyya, 1374/1955. 2 vols. Mizzı̄ — Abū l-H . ajjāj Yūsuf al-Mizzı̄. Tahdhı̄b al-kamāl fı̄ asmā ֓ al-rijāl , ed. Bashshār ֒Awwād Ma֒rūf, Beirut: al-Risāla, 1405/1985–1413/1992. 35 vols. Mu֒āfā, Jalı̄s .sālih. — al-Mu֒āfā ibn Zakariyyā֓. al-Jalı̄s al-s.ālih. al-kāfı̄ wa-l-anı̄s al-nās.ih. al-shāfı̄, ed. Muh.ammad Mursı̄ al-Khūlı̄ and Ih.sān ֒Abbās, Beirut: ֒Ālam al-Kutub, 1413/1993. 4 vols. Muh.abbar — Abū Ja֒far Muh.ammad, Ibn H . abı̄b. Kitāb al-muh.abbar , ed. Ilse Lichtenstaedter, Hyderabad: Dā֓irat al-Ma֒ārif al-֒Uthmāniyya, 1361/1942. Reprint Beirut: al-Maktab al-Tijārı̄, n.d. Munammaq — Abū Ja֒far Muh.ammad, Ibn H . abı̄b. Kitāb al-munammaq fı̄ akhbār Quraysh, ed. Khūrshı̄d Ah.mad Fāriq, Beirut: ֒Ālam al-Kutub, 1405/1985. Muntaz.am — ֒Abd al-Rah.mān ibn ֒Alı̄, Ibn al-Jawzı̄. al-Muntaz.am fı̄ ta ֓rı̄kh al-mulūk wal-umam, ed. Muh.ammad ֒Abd al-Qādir ֒At.ā and Mus.t.afa ֒Abd al-Qādir ֒At.ā, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-֒Ilmiyya, 1412/1992. 17 vols. Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, Tafsı̄r — MS Saray, Ahmet III 74. Murūj — Abū l-H . asan ֒Alı̄ ibn al-H . usayn al-Mas֒ūdı̄. Murūj al-dhahab, ed. Ch. Pellat, Beirut: al-Jāmi֒a al-Lubnāniyya, 1966–79. 7 vols. Muslim — Muslim ibn al-H . ajjāj. S.ah.ı̄h., ed. Muh.ammad Fu֓ād ֒Abd al-Bāqı̄, Cairo 1374/1955. 5 vols. Muslim Studies — I. Goldziher. Muslim Studies, ed. S.M. Stern, trans. C.R. Barber and S.M. 42 Arabian Idol Worship Stern, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966. 2 vols. Mustadrak — Abū ֒Abdallāh al-H . ākim al-Naysābūrı̄. al-Mustadrak ֒alā l-s.ah.ı̄h.ayni fı̄ l-h.adı̄th, ֓ ֒ Hyderabad: Dā irat al-Ma ārif al-֒Uthmāniyya, 1335/1917–1342/1923. Reprint Riyadh: Maktabat wa-Mat.ābi֒ al-Nas.r al-H . adı̄tha, 1968. 4 vols. Nas.r, Amkina — Abū l-Fath. Nas.r ibn ֒Abd al-Rah.mān al-Fazārı̄ al-Iskandarānı̄. al-Amkina wa-l-miyāh wa-l-jibāl wa-l-āthār , MS Br. Lib. Add. 23,603. Nicholson, R.A. A Literary History of the Arabs, London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1907. Reprint Cambridge: The University Press, 1966. Nubalā ֓ — Shams al-Dı̄n al-Dhahabı̄. Siyar a ֒lām al-nubalā ֓, ed. Shu֒ayb al-Arnāwūt. et al , Beirut: Mu֓assasat al-Risāla, 1401/1981–1409/1988. 25 vols. Paret, R. Mohammed und der Koran. Geschichte und Verkündigung des arabischen Propheten, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1957. Peters, F.E. (ed.), The Arabs and Arabia on the Eve of Islam, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999. (The Formation of the Classical Islamic World, Vol. III.) Qurt.ubı̄, Tafsı̄r — Abū ֒Abdallāh Muh.ammad ibn Ah.mad al-Qurt.ubı̄. al-Jāmi ֒ li-ah.kām al-qur ֓ān 3 , Cairo: Dār al-Kutub, 1387/1967 (reprint). Reste — J. Wellhausen. Reste arabischen Heidentums 2 , Berlin 1897. Reprint Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1961. Robinson, C.F. Empire and Elites after the Muslim Conquest: The Transformation of Northern Mesopotamia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. —, Islamic Historiography, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Rubin, “H . anı̄fiyya” — U. Rubin, “H . anı̄fiyya and Ka֒ba: an inquiry into the Arabian preIslamic background of dı̄n Ibrāhı̄m”, in JSAI 13 (1990), 85–112. Sam֒ānı̄ — ֒Abd al-Karı̄m ibn Muh.ammad al-Sam֒ānı̄. al-Ansāb, ed. ֒Abdallāh ֒Umar alBārūdı̄, Beirut: Dār al-Jinān, 1408/1988. 5 vols. Serjeant, R.B. “Dawlah, Tribal Shaykhs, the Mans.ab of the Waliyyah-Sa֒ı̄dah, qasāmah, in the Fad.lı̄ Sultanate, South Arabian Federation”, in M.M. Ibrahim (ed.,) Arabian Studies in Honour of Mahmoud Ghul: Symposium at Yarmouk University December 8–11, 1984 , Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989, 134–60. Reprinted in idem, Customary and Shari ֒ah Law in Arabian Society, Aldershot 1991, no. V. Shu ֒ab al-ı̄mān — Ah.mad ibn al-H . usayn al-Bayhaqı̄. Shu ֒ab al-ı̄mān, ed. Zaghlūl, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-֒Ilmiyya, 1410/1990. 9 vols. Stummer, F. “Bemerkungen zum Götzenbuch des Ibn al-Kalbı̄”, in ZDMG 98 (1944), 377–94. Suyūt.ı̄, Khas.ā ֓is. — Jalāl al-Dı̄n al-Suyūt.ı̄. al-Khas.ā ֓is. al-kubrā, ed. Muh.ammad Khalı̄l Harās, Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-H . adı̄tha, 1387/1967. 3 vols. T.abarānı̄, al-Mu ֒jam al-kabı̄r — Abū l-Qāsim Sulaymān ibn Ah.mad al-T.abarānı̄. al-Mu ֒jam al-Kabı̄r 2 , ed. H . amdı̄ ֒Abd al-Majı̄d al-Salafı̄, Cairo 1405/1985. 10 vols. T.abarānı̄, T iwāl — al-Ah . . ādı̄th al-t.iwāl , ed. Mus.t.afā ֒Abd al-Qādir ֒At.ā, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-֒Ilmiyya, 1412/1992. T.abarı̄ — Abū Ja֒far Muh.ammad ibn Jarı̄r al-T . abarı̄. Ta ֓rı̄kh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk , ed. Muh.ammad Abū l-Fad.l Ibrāhı̄m, Cairo: Dār al-Ma֒ārif, 1380/1960–1387/1967. 10 vols. The page numbers are given according to the edition of M. de Goeje et al., Leiden: Brill, 1879–1901. T.abarı̄ trans., VI — W.M. Watt and M.V. McDonald (trans.), The history of al-T . abarı̄, VI, New York: State University of New York Press, 1988. T.abarı̄, Tahdhı̄b al-āthār (Musnad ֒Alı̄), ed. Mah.mūd Muh.ammad Shākir, Cairo: Mat.ba֒at al-Madanı̄, [1402/1982]. Tadhkirat al-h.uffāz. — Shams al-Dı̄n al-Dhahabı̄. Tadhkirat al-h.uffāz.3 , Hyderabad: Dā֓irat al-Ma֒ārif al-֒Uthmāniyya, 1376/1956. Reprint Beirut: Dār Ih.yā֓ al-Turāth al-֒Arabı̄, n. d. 3 vols. Tahdhı̄b al-asmā ֓ — Abū Zakariyyā֓ al–Nawawı̄. Tahdhı̄b al-asmā ֓ wa-l-lughāt, Cairo n.d. Arabian Idol Worship 43 Reprint Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-֒Ilmiyya, n.d. 2 vols. Talbı̄s iblı̄s — Ibn Jawzı̄. Talbı̄s iblı̄s, Cairo 1368/1949. Reprint Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al֒Ilmiyya, n.d. ֓ Ta rı̄kh Baghdād — al-Khat.ı̄b al-Baghdādı̄. Ta ֓rı̄kh Baghdād, Cairo: al-Khānjı̄, 1349/1931. 14 vols. Tritton, A.S. “Notes on religion in early Arabia”, in Le Muséon 72 (1959), 191–95. ֒Ujāla — Abū Bakr Muh.ammad ibn Abı̄ ֒Uthmān al-H . āzimı̄. ֒Ujālat al-mubtadı̄ wa-fud.ālat ֒ al-muntahı̄ fı̄ l-nasab, ed. Abdallāh Kannūn, Cairo: al-Hay֓a al-֒Āmma li-Shu֓ūn alMat.ābi֒ al-Amı̄riyya, 1384/1965. Usd al-ghāba — Abū l-H . asan ֒Alı̄ ibn Muh.ammad ֒Izz al-Dı̄n, Ibn al-Athı̄r. Usd al-ghāba fı̄ ֒ ma rifat al-s.ah.āba, Cairo: al-Mat.ba֒a al-Wahbiyya, 1280/1863. 5 vols. Wāqidı̄ — Abū ֒Abdallāh Muh.ammad ibn ֒Umar al-Wāqidı̄. Kitāb al-maghāzı̄, ed. Marsden Jones, London: Oxford University Press, 1966. 3 vols. Wāqidı̄/Wellhausen — J. Wellhausen. Muhammed in Medina. Das ist Vakidi’s Kitab alMaghazi in verkürzter deutscher Wiedergabe, Berlin: G. Reimer, 1882. Watt, Mecca — W.M. Watt. Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1953. Wensinck, A.J. Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, W. Behn (trans. and ed.), Freiburg im Breisgau: K. Schwarz, 1975. Originally appeared under the title Mohammed en de Joden te Medina, Leiden: Brill, 1908. Ya֒qūbı̄, Ta ֓rı̄kh — Ah.mad ibn Abı̄ Ya֒qūb al-Ya֒qūbı̄. Ta ֓rı̄kh, Beirut: Dār S.ādir–Dār Bayrūt, 1379/1960. Yāqūt — Yāqūt al-H . amawı̄. Mu ֒jam al-buldān, Beirut: Dār S.ādir–Dār Bayrūt, 1957. ZDMG — Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.