'Amr Salūl Bin ibn 'Amr Ka'b

Salūl is the name of two tribal groups in northern Arabia: a branch of Ḵh̲uzāʿa [q.v.] and a branch of the so-called Northern Arabian federation Ḳays ʿAylān [q.v.], more precisely, the Hawāzin [q.v.]

1. The lineage of the Salūl who were a branch of Ḵh̲uzāʿa was:

Salūl b. Kaʿb b. ʿAmr b. Rabīʿa b. Ḥārit̲h̲a.

The genealogists list, beside Salūl himself, the following descendants of his as eponyms of tribal groups (the term employed is baṭn):

Ḳumayr b. Ḥabs̲h̲iya (variants: Ḥabs̲h̲iyya, Ḥabas̲h̲iyya, Ḥubs̲h̲iyya), Ḥulayl b. Ḥabs̲h̲iya, including the descendants of Abū G̲h̲ubs̲h̲ān, who were numerous and formed many tribal groups, Ḍāṭir b. Ḥabs̲h̲iya, Kulayb b. Ḥabs̲h̲iya, al-Ḥizmir (variants: al-Ḥirmiz, al-Ḥurmuz) b. Salūl, ʿAdī b. Salūl, Ḥabtar b. ʿAdī and Hanīʾa b. ʿAdī (see also Ibn Durayd, al-Is̲h̲tiḳāḳ, ed. ʿAbd al-Salām Hārūn, Cairo 1378/1958, 468-73; cf. Caskel, Ǧamharat an-nasab, i, 198, 199; Ibn ʿAbd Rabbihi, al-ʿIḳd al-farīd, ed. Aḥmad Amīn et alii, Cairo 1384/1965; iii, 383; Hanīʾa’s mother is said to have been the daughter of Salūl b. Ṣaʿṣaʿa (Ibn al-Kalbī, Nasab Maʿadd wa ’l-Yaman al-kabīr, ed. Nād̲j̲ī Ḥasan, Beirut 1408/1988, ii, 446), which points to a link between the two tribal groups called Salūl).

There are two indications, both related to blood-revenge, that before Islam the Ḳumayr were the leading group among the Salūl, and possibly among the Kaʿb b. ʿAmr as a whole. First, one of the Ḳumayr, ʿAmr b. Ḵh̲ālid, vowed that he would not let the blood of a Kaʿbī go unavenged (Nasab Maʿadd, ii, 441). Second, when al-Walīd b. al-Mug̲h̲īra of the Ḳuras̲h̲ī Banū Mak̲h̲zūm [q.v.] died of an injury caused by a Ḵh̲uzāʿī (who was either of the Ḳumayr or of the Hanīʾa), it was again a member of the Ḳumayr, Busr b. Sufyān, who intervened in the ensuing crisis. Busr guaranteed the payment of the blood-money agreed upon—a compromise was struck; Ḵh̲uzāʿa did not admit responsibility for al-Walīd’s death. Busr even brought a son of his to Ḳurays̲h̲ [q.v.] as hostage. But Ḵh̲ālid b. al-Walīd [q.v.], who was the son of the slain man, sent the boy back (Nasab Maʿadd, ii, 447; Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, Iṣāba, ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Bid̲j̲āwī, Cairo 1392/1972, i, 293; Muḥammad b. Ḥabīb, al-Munammaḳ fī ak̲h̲bār Ḳurays̲h̲, ed. Ḵh̲ūrs̲h̲īd Aḥmad Fāriḳ, Beirut 1405/1985, 191-9; Ibn His̲h̲ām, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. al-Saḳḳā et alii, Beirut 1391/1971, ii, 52-4).

The crisis over al-Walīd’s blood-money is illuminating with regard to Mecca’s internal politics on the eve of Islam. One assumes that in the dispute, the Banū Hās̲h̲im supported Ḵh̲uzāʿa: the Kaʿb b. ʿAmr of Ḵh̲uzāʿa, to whom the Salūl belonged, had an alliance with ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib b. Hās̲h̲im (Ibn Ḥabīb, al-Munammaḳ, 192-2). In this alliance, ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib was the most important figure on the Ḳuras̲h̲ī side. On the Ḵh̲uzāʿī side we find, among others, representatives of the following Salūl subdivisions: Ḳumayr, Ḍāṭir and Ḥabtar. As usual in tribal alliances, marriage links were agreed upon: ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib married on that day the daughters of two of the Ḵh̲uzāʿī leaders who were party to the alliance, i.e. the representatives of Ḍāṭir and Ḥabtar. The former bore him the famous Abū Lahab [q.v.] (and see U. Rubin, Abū Lahab and sūra cxi, in BSOAS, xlii [1979], 16), while the latter bore him al-G̲h̲aydāḳ (M.J. Kister, On strangers and allies in Mecca, in JSAI, xiii [1990], 140; M. Lecker, The Banū Sulaym : a contribution to the study of early Islam, Jerusalem 1989, 129). In other words, two of the Prophet’s paternal uncles were born by Salūlī women (Ḥassān b. T̲h̲ābit. Dīwān, ed. W. ʿArafat, London 1971, ii, 16-7; al-Balād̲h̲urī, Ansāb al-as̲h̲rāf i, ed. Muḥammad Ḥamīdullāh, Cairo 1959, 71-2; art. k̲h̲uzāʿa, at V, 78a-b; Kister, op. cit., 151). The Mak̲h̲zūmī position in the dispute over al-Walīd’s blood-money was supported by the Aḥābīs̲h̲ [see ḥabas̲h̲, ḥabas̲h̲a. at the end] who at some stage were called upon by the Mak̲h̲zūm to intervene (Ibn Ḥabīb, Munammaḳ, 195-6).

The most important role played by the Salūl before Islam was the one associated with Mecca in general and the Kaʿba in particular. Their eponym Salūl is said to have been a custodian (ḥād̲j̲ib) of the Kaʿba, and the same is said about his son Ḥabs̲h̲iya b. Salūl and his grandson Ḥulayl b. Ḥabs̲h̲iya, who was, according to some, the last Ḵh̲uzāʿī custodian of the Kaʿba. According to others, the last custodian was Ḥulayl’s son al-Muḥtaris̲h̲, better known by his kunya Abū G̲h̲ubs̲h̲ān.

There are several versions concerning the transference of the authority over the Kaʿba, and over the affairs of Mecca in general, from Ḵh̲uzāʿa to Ḳurays̲h̲, more specifically to Ḳuṣayy b. Kilāb [q.v.] (and see k̲h̲uzāʿa, at V, 77b-78a; Kister, Mecca and the tribes of Arabia, in Studies in Islamic history and civilization in honour of David Ayalon, ed. M. Sharon, Jerusalem and Leiden 1986, 50, repr. in idem, Society and religion from Ḏj̲āhiliyya to Islam, Variorum Reprints, Aldershot 1990, no. II). For example, it is reported that Abū G̲h̲ubs̲h̲ān sold Ḳuṣayy his rights. The alleged sale is at the background of the popular saying "Incurring more loss than Abū G̲h̲ubs̲h̲ān’s deal" (ak̲h̲sar min ṣafḳat Abī G̲h̲ubs̲h̲ān; see k̲h̲uzāʿa. at V, 78a). This version of the story was promulgated by people fanatically hostile to the so-called Southern tribes (fa-yaqūlu ’l-mutaʿaṣṣibūna ʿalā ’l-Yamāniya inna Ḳuṣayyan s̲h̲tarā ’l-miftāḥ, etc.; al-Wazīr al-Mag̲h̲ribī, al-Īnās fī ʿilm al-ansāb, ed. Ḥamad al-Ḏj̲āsir, Riyāḍ 1400/1980, 114; obviously, the Ḵh̲uzāʿa figure here as a Southern tribe).

The Ḵh̲uzāʿa could not remain indifferent to the way in which this crucial chapter of their pre-Islamic history was recorded: al-Wāḳidī concludes one of the variants of this version with a statement that it was denied by the elders of Ḵh̲uzāʿa (ḳāla ’l-Wāḳidī : wa-ḳad raʾaytu mas̲h̲yak̲h̲ata Ḵh̲uzāʿa tunkiru hād̲h̲ā; al-Fāsī, S̲h̲ifāʾ al-g̲h̲arām bi-ak̲h̲bār al-balad al-ḥarām, ed. ʿUmar ʿAbd al-Salām Tadmurī, Beirut 1405/1985, ii, 87). The Ḵh̲uzāʿīs stated that Ḥulayl b. Ḥabs̲h̲iya bequeathed to his son-in-law Ḳuṣayy the authority over the Kaʿba and Mecca. Their version is attested, for instance, in an autobiographical report going back to the Companion Ḵh̲irās̲h̲ b. Umayya of the Salūl (S̲h̲ifāʾ al-g̲h̲arām, ii, 114). Ibn Isḥāḳ quotes the Ḵh̲uzāʿī claim, adding that he did not hear this from non-Ḵh̲uzāʿī sources, "and God knows best" (Ibn His̲h̲ām, Sīra, i, 124). The dispute over this matter no doubt dates back to the earliest stage of Islamic historiography and could even be pre-Islamic.

A prominent feature of the Salūl, and one concerning which there was continuity from the pre-Islamic period to at least the 2nd century A.H., was the ḳiyāfa [q.v.], i.e. the science of physiognomancy and the examination of traces on the ground. It was a Salūlī, Kurz b. ʿAlḳama, who allegedly tracked the Prophet and Abū Bakr when they left Mecca for the Hid̲j̲ra. Upon viewing the Prophet’s footprint, Kurz recognized it as being similar to that of Abraham, found at the maḳām Ibrāhīm; according to the science of ḳiyāfa, this similarity indicated that the Prophet descended from Abraham [see maḳām ibrāhīm, at VI, esp. 105b]. Later, at the time of Muʿāwiya, Kurz reinstated the marks indicating the boundaries of the sacred territory of Mecca (maʿālim al-ḥaram, or anṣāb al-ḥaram; Ibn Saʿd, v, 338; Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, Iṣāba, v, 583-4; Caskel, ii, 374). The continuity from pre-Islamic times is also reflected in Ibn al-Kalbī’s remark that in his own time, Kurz’s descendants were still trackers in Mecca (Nasab Maʿadd, ii, 444).

Since the Salūl, and the Banū Kaʿb b. ʿAmr in general, inhabited the vicinity of Mecca (the placenames ʿUsfān, al-Ẓahrān, Ḳudayd and Arāk are mentioned), their role in the struggle between the Prophet and Mecca was important. Indeed Muʿattib b. ʿAwf of the Salūl, more precisely of the Kulayb subdivision, participated in the Battle of Badr [q.v.], but this does not indicate the beginning of his tribe’s involvement in the struggle: he was the client (ḥalīf) of the Mak̲h̲zūm (Ibn Saʿd, iii/1, 189; al-Wāḳidī, al-Mag̲h̲āzī, ed. J.M.B. Jones, London 1966, i, 155, 341; Ibn His̲h̲ām, Sīra, ii, 339), i.e. of one of the Prophet’s Mak̲h̲zūmī Companions, perhaps Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Asad.

Ḵh̲irās̲h̲ b. Umayya of the Kulayb subdivision was also a client (ḥalīf) of the Mak̲h̲zūm. He provides a valuable lead with regard to Salūl’s role in the expedition of Muraysīʿ which took place more than a year, or, according to others, several months, before the expedition of Ḥudaybiya (cf. Jones, The chronology of the mag̲h̲āzī—a textual survey, in BSOAS, xix [1957], 250-1, 254). The story of a small episode during the Muraysīʿ expedition reveals that Ḵh̲irās̲h̲ was there, probably together with other Salūlīs. The party attacked by the Muslims at al-Muraysīʿ was of the Muṣṭaliḳ who were, like the Salūl themselves, a subdivision of the Ḵh̲uzāʿa (see k̲h̲uzāʿa, at V, 78b; on the territory of the Muṣṭaliḳ, cf. Lecker, The Banū Sulaym, 101 n.). A member of the Muṣṭaliḳ, ʿĀmir b. Abī Ḍirār, who was the brother of their leader al-Ḥārit̲h̲ b. Abī Ḍirār, hit one of the Anṣār with an arrow (and probably killed him). Ḵh̲irās̲h̲ threw himself on ʿĀmir in a display of Ḵh̲uzāʿī solidarity so as to protect him from the Anṣār, who wanted to kill him (Ibn al-At̲h̲īr, Usd al-g̲h̲āba, Cairo 1280 A.H., ii, 108, quoting Ibn al-Kalbī; Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, Iṣāba, ii, 269-70). This episode points to military co-operation between the Salūl and the Prophet some time before Ḥudaybiya. In other words, the Prophet was presumably playing one branch of Ḵh̲uzāʿa against the other. In order to place this expedition in its correct historical context it has to be borne in mind that the Muṣṭaliḳ (and their brother clan Ḥayā) belonged to the Aḥābīs̲h̲ (Nasab Maʿadd, ii, 455; Muḥammad b. Ḥabīb, al-Muḥabbar, ed. I. Lichtenstaedter, Ḥaydarābād 1361/1942, 246, 267; on the role of ʿAbd Manāf in this alliance see also idem, Munammaḳ, 230-1; for more sources see k̲h̲uzāʿa, at V, 78a). This perfectly conforms to the statement that the Muṣṭaliḳ and the Ḥayā were the only groups of Ḵh̲uzāʿa who did not have an alliance with the Prophet (Ḥassān b. T̲h̲ābit, Dīwān, ii, 15-6).

From the expedition of Ḥudaybiya in 6/628 onwards (see al-ḥudaybiya; and Lecker, The Ḥudaybiyya-treaty and the expedition against Ḵh̲aybar, in JSAI, v [1984], 1-11) the Salūl, or in any case many of them, were clearly on the Prophet’s side. At Ḥudaybiya the above-mentioned Ḵh̲irās̲h̲ b. Umayya was in the Prophet’s camp. He was sent to Mecca as an envoy and was nearly killed by ʿIkrima b. Abī Ḏj̲ahl of the Mak̲h̲zūm (al-Wāḳidī, ii, 600); then he participated in the expedition of Ḵh̲aybar and in later expeditions, including the conquest of Mecca (Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, Iṣāba, ii, 270; al-Wāḳidī, ii, 600, 843-5). But a more prominent role at Ḥudaybiya was played by the above-mentioned Busr b. Sufyān. Busr’s status as a tribal leader meant that when he threw in his lot with the Prophet some time before Ḥudaybiya, he had the backing of a considerable force.

With regard to the conquest of Mecca by the Prophet in 8/630, it is reported that Busr, who was of the Ḳumayr subdivision, and Budayl b. Umm Aṣram of the Ḥabtar subdivision (whose grandmother was of the Ḳuras̲h̲ī Banū Hās̲h̲im) were sent to the Kaʿb in order to summon them to the expedition (Ibn al-At̲h̲īr, ¶ Usd, i, 169; cf. Yāḳūt, s.v. al-Watīr; Abū ʿUbayd al-Bakrī, Muʿd̲j̲am mā staʿd̲j̲am, ed. Muṣṭafā al-Saḳḳā, Cairo 1364-71/1945-51, s.vv. Fāt̲h̲ūr and al-Watīr; al-ʿIṣāmī, Simṭ al-nud̲j̲ūm al-ʿawālī, Cairo 1380, ii, 173-4). They were presumably sent to the Ḥabtar and Ḳumayr subdivisions, respectively. A large troop of the Kaʿb, divided into three tribal units, joined the Prophet at Ḳudayd, while other Kaʿbīs set out from Medina, where they had arrived some time before the expedition (see k̲h̲uzāʿa, at V, 79a; Lecker, The Banū Sulaym, 143-4; al-Wāḳidī, ii, 800-1, 819, 896 [%E1%B8%A4unayn], 990 [Tab%C5%ABk]). However, not all of the Salūlīs were on the Prophet’s side: while Busr b. Sufyān is said to have embraced Islam in 6/627-8 (i.e. before Ḥudaybiya) and to have spied for the Prophet in Mecca, the above-mentioned Kurz b. ʿAlḳama is said to have embraced Islam "on the day Mecca was conquered", i.e. he was not among the Salūlīs who helped the Prophet conquer Mecca.

Busr b. Sufyān is mentioned as the recipient, or one of the recipients, of a letter from the Prophet (see Ḥamīdullāh, Mad̲j̲mūʿat al-wat̲h̲āʾiḳ al-siyāsiyya li’l-ʿahd al-nabawī wa’l-k̲h̲ilāfa al-rās̲h̲ida, 5Beirut 1405/1985, 275-7; Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, Iṣāba, i, 292; W.M. Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford 1956, 355; cf. Lecker, On the preservation of the letters of the Prophet Muḥammad, forth-coming). In 9/630-1 the Prophet appointed Busr as a tax collector and sent him to his own tribal group, the Banū Kaʿb b. ʿAmr (see k̲h̲uzāʿa, loc. cit.; Ibn Saʿd, ii/1, 115; cf. al-Wāḳidī, iii, 973-4).

In the Islamic period, some of the Kaʿb b. ʿAmr settled in Medina (Ibn S̲h̲abba, Taʾrīk̲h̲ al-Madīna al-munawwara, ed. Fahīm Muḥammad S̲h̲altūt, Mecca 1399/1979, i, 268; al-Samhūdī, Wafāʾ al-wafā, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, Cairo 1374/1955, ii, 765). They included members of the Salūl: Ḳabīṣa b. Ḏh̲uʾayb. who was a high-ranking official in the court of the Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān [q.v.] (see e.g. al-Ḏj̲ahs̲h̲iyārī, al-Wuzarāʾ wa ’l-kuttāb, ed. al-Saḳḳā et al., Cairo 1401/1980, 34), was originally from Medina (Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrīk̲h̲ madīnat Dimas̲h̲ḳ, facs. ed. ʿAmmān n.d., xiv, 392, l. 13; see also Caskel, ii, 454; his father, who died at the time of Muʿāwiya [q.v.], still inhabited Ḳudayd; Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, Iṣāba, ii, 422). Ḳabīṣa was of the Ḳumayr subdivision. Another Salūlī whose descendants lived in Medina was Ḵh̲irās̲h̲ b. Umayya of the Kulayb subdivision (Nasab Maʿadd, ii, 445; for a well in Mecca dug in the Islamic period by Ḵh̲irās̲h̲. or by another member of the Kaʿb, see al-Fākihī, Ak̲h̲bār Makka, ed. ʿAbd al-Malik b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Duhays̲h̲, Mecca 1407/1987, iv, 115, 116, 221; v, map no. 3; cf. the land near the Kaʿba granted by the Prophet to ʿUtba b. Farḳad al-Sulamī; Lecker, The Banū Sulaym, 132).

At the time of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, Ḳudayd and ʿUsfān north-west of Mecca were still at the heart of the territory of Ḵh̲uzāʿa (cf. al-Balād̲h̲urī, Futūḥ, 452; k̲h̲uzāʿa, at V, 79b), and this was probably true for the Salūl as well.

After the conquests, some of the Salūl settled in ʿIrāḳ (Nasab Maʿadd, ii, 445, where a member the Ḥizmir subdivision who was a s̲h̲arīf in ʿIrāḳ and a government official is mentioned; Ḵh̲uzāʿat al-Ḥid̲j̲āz and Ḵh̲uzāʿat al-ʿIrāḳ are mentioned, with reference to the time of ʿAbd al-Malik, in al-Wazīr al-Maghribī, Adab al-k̲h̲awāṣṣ, ed. al-Ḏj̲āsir, Riyāḍ 1400/1980, 134). Others settled in Ḵh̲urāsān: Mālik b. al-Hayt̲h̲am of the Ḳumayr was one of the nuḳabāʾ [see naḳīb] of the ʿAbbāsid daʿwa, and two of his sons were in charge of the s̲h̲urṭa in the early ʿAbbāsid period (Nasab Maʿadd, ii, 442; Ibn Ḥazm, Ḏj̲amharat ansāb al-ʿarab, ed. Hārūn, Cairo 1382/1962, 236; Ak̲h̲bār al-dawla al-ʿAbbāsiyya, ¶ ed. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Dūrī and ʿAbd al-Ḏj̲abbār al-Muṭṭalibī, Beirut 1971, 216; Sharon, Black banners from the East, Jerusalem 1983, 192; al-Ṭabarī, index; the prominent role played by Ḵh̲uzāʿa and their mawālī in the daʿwa indicates that studying the history of this tribe after the conquests will further our understanding of the daʿwa; cf. Caskel, ii, 41). Mālik’s brother, ʿAwf, was one of the ḳuwwād of the daʿwa and a mosque in Cairo (miṣr) was called after him (Nasab Maʿadd, ii, 442). The above-mentioned Kurz b. ʿAlḳama is said to have inhabited ʿAsḳalān (Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, Iṣāba, v, 584). However, many Salūlīs probably never left Arabia: al-Ḳalḳas̲h̲andī (d. 821/1418) reported that Barza near ʿUsfān was inhabited, among others, by the Salūl (see on this place, Lecker, The Banū Sulaym, xiii [map], 148).

After the conquests, some of the Salūl settled in Kūfa (for Abū Maryam, see Ibn Saʿd, vi, 37; Ibn Mākūlā, al-Ikmāl, i, 227; see also Yāḳūt, s.v. Ḏj̲abbāna; al-Balād̲h̲urī, Futūḥ, 285; ʿAbd Allāh b. Hammām al-Salūlī was in Kūfa at the time of Muʿāwiya; ¶ see e.g. Ag̲h̲ānī1 , xiv, 120). Ibn al-Kalbī mentions several Salūlī supporters of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (see also Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-T̲h̲aḳafī. al-G̲h̲ārāt, ed. Ḏj̲alāl al-Dīn al-Muḥaddit̲h̲, Tehran 1395/1975, index, s.v. ʿĀṣim b. Ḍamra and Hind b. ʿĀṣim; Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, Iṣāba, ii, 13-4, s.v. Ḥubs̲h̲ī b. Ḏj̲unāda). There were also Salūlīs in Mawṣil (cf. N. Abbott, A new papyrus and a review of the administration of ʿUbaid Allāh b. al-Ḥabḥāb, in Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton A. R. Gibb, ed. G. Makdisi, Leiden 1965, 25; ʿUbayd Allāh was the ancestor of the Ḥabāḥiba who lived in Mawṣil, or of some of them; al-Azdī, Taʾrīk̲h̲ al-Mawṣil, Cairo 1387/1967, 27). Other members of the Salūl settled in al-Andalus (Ibn Ḥazm, Ḏj̲amhara. 272).

In the Islamic period, the Salūl, or some of them, were probably incorporated in the famous ʿĀmir b. Ṣaʿṣaʿa [q.v.], possibly as a result of conditions in the garrison cities. This development is reflected in the lineage of one of them, referred to as al-ʿĀmirī al-Salūlī, where ʿĀmir is jnserted between Murra and Ṣaʿṣaʿa: ... Murra b. ʿĀmir b. Ṣaʿṣaʿa (Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, Iṣāba, vi, 477, quoting Ibn al-Kalbī; Ibn al-At̲h̲īr, Usd, v, 44-5, s.v. Nahīk b. Ḳuṣayy ... b. Murra b. ʿĀmir b. Ṣaʿṣaʿa al-ʿĀmirī al-Salūlī).

Citation " Salūl." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online , 2013. Reference. Jim Harlow. 10 January 2013 <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-isla...>

Bibliography

Ibn Duraid, Is̲h̲tiḳāḳ, ed. Wüstenfeld, p. 276 sqq.

al-Nuwairī, Nihāyat al-Arab, ed. Cairo, ii. 318 sqq. and 336

al-Ḳalḳas̲h̲andī, Nihāyat al-Arab, ed. Bag̲h̲dād, p. 199, 242, 260, 312, 326

al-ʿIḳd al-Farīd, ed. Cairo, 1316, ii. 53

al-Samʿānī, Ansāb, ed. Margoliouth, Gibb Memorial Series, vol. xx., fol. 304a

Ag̲h̲ānī, ix. 93, xv. 53

Usd al-G̲h̲āba, ed. Cairo, 1286 (passim)

Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, Tahd̲h̲īb, ed. Ḥaidarābād, (passim)

Wüstenfeld, Genealogische Tabellen and Register.

Citation Krenkow, F.. " Salūl." Encyclopaedia of Islam, First Edition (1913-1936). Brill Online , 2013. Reference. Jim Harlow. 10 January 2013 <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-isla...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K̲h̲uzāʿa b. ʿAmr, name of a South-Arabian tribe, a branch of the large tribe of Azd. The genealogists with few exceptions are unanimous in tracing their pedigree through ʿAmr, surnamed Luḥaiy, b. Rabīʿa b. Ḥārit̲h̲a b. Muzaikiya and they agree further that they, together with the other branches of the Azd, left South Arabia at a remote time and wandered with them to the North. When they reached the territory of Mekka, most of their kinsmen continued their journey, the G̲h̲assān to Syria, Azd S̲h̲anūʿa to ʿOmān, but Luḥaiy remained with his clan near Mekka and thus separated (ink̲h̲azaʿa) from the remainder of the tribe. The city of Mekka and the sacred territory was at that time in the hands of the tribe of Ḏj̲urhum and we may fix the time approximately in the fifth century of the Christian era, though Arab antiquaries, by assigning exceptionally long lives to some of the chiefs, date their arrival near Mekka several centuries further back. According to the same antiquaries the Ḏj̲urhum had allowed the sanctity of the sacred territory to lose much of its splendour and in addition by extortions from pilgrims had caused the pilgrimage to have fallen greatly into disuse. The leader of the Azd, T̲h̲aʿlaba b. ʿAmr, had asked from the Ḏj̲urhum permission to stay in the sacred territory till his foragers had found suitable pasture-grounds elsewhere. This permission the Ḏj̲urhum would not grant and as T̲h̲aʿlaba said that he would stay, whether they allowed it or not it came to fierce fighting which lasted several days and ended in the utter defeat of the Ḏj̲urhum. Only Muḍāḍ b. ʿAmr al-Ḏj̲urhumī who had held aloof from the fighting was allowed to leave the city peacefully, and founded a new settlement with his family and followers at Ḳanān and Ḥaly, where his descendants still resided in the third century of the Hid̲j̲ra. Having become complete masters of Mekka and the sacred territory, they permitted the descendants of Ismāʿīl, who were few in numbers and had taken no share in the quarrel, to remain peacefully among them. The very next year of the conquest brought epidemic fevers, to the new population and according to some historians it was not till this time that the other clans of Azd migrated further afield. With a view to establishing a legal claim to the custodianship of the sanctuary, no doubt, Rabīʿa b. Ḥārit̲h̲a b. ʿAmr married Fuhaira the daughter of ʿĀmir b. ʿAmr b. al-Ḥārit̲h̲ b. Muḍāḍ, who had been the last ruler of Mekka, and thus he became the richest man in the city. From this latter account it becomes almost evident that the two tribes lived for some time together in Mekka and that the rise of the Ḵh̲uzāʿa was less violent than is generally concluded from the first account. There can hardly be any doubt that here the same process occured as it happened continually, that the tribes outside a town by gradual pressure upon the more peaceful and prosperous towndwellers became in time the masters of the situation, only to suffer the same fate a few generations later. Rabīʿa is credited with having re-introduced the rites of the pilgrimage, especially by caring for the welfare of the numerous pilgrims who visited the sanctuary, but he is also credited with having been the first to have placed the idols round the Kaʿba and especially with having brought the idol Hubal from Hīt in Mesopotamia, which with other idols still existed at the time ¶ of Muḥammad. Rabīʿa and his descendants remained custodians for a very long time (Arab historians mention 300 and 500 years — which figures must be highly exaggerated). The last ruler was Hulail b. Ḥubs̲h̲īya b. Salūl b. Kaʿb b. ʿAmr who gave his daughter Ḥubbaiy in marriage to Ḳuṣaiy, the head of the small clan of Ḳurais̲h̲, a branch of the tribe of Kināna. Hulail when he grew old made it a practice to give to his daughter or his son-in-law the keys of the Kaʿba to perform such duties as were the privilege of the custodian of the sanctuary. When Hulail died he left his office to his daughter and his son-in-law, but when the latter wanted to claim this right, he was strongly opposed by the whole of Ḵh̲uzāʿa, who forcibly took the keys of the sanctuary from Ḥubbaiy. Ḳuṣaiy who had many friends among the Kināna who were settled in the vicinity of the sacred territory as also among the Ḳuḍāʿa, came to an arrangement with his friends that at the next pilgrimage-period and upon the termination of the rites of the pilgrimage it should come to open quarrel with the Ḵh̲uzāʿa, and in the end it resulted in fierce fighting in which many were slain. To settle the dispute both parties agreed to submit to the judgment of Yaʿmar b. ʿAwf al-Kilābī. Both parties were invited to meet at the portals of the Kaʿba and when Yaʿmar had ascertained the number of slain of Ḵh̲uzāʿa to be greater than that of the partisans of Ḳuṣaiy he gave judgment in favour of the latter. He was in consequence given the custodianship of the sanctuary and with it the rule of the city of Mekka, while the Ḵh̲uzāʿa were permitted to reside with the Ḳurais̲h̲ in the precincts of the sacred territory. Thus the end of the rule of the Ḵh̲uzāʿa was also the commencement of the rule of the tribe of Ḳurais̲h̲ [q. v.]. Another less heroic account, however, tells us that Ḳuṣaiy bought the custodianship from Abū G̲h̲ubs̲h̲ān, the last ruler of the tribe of Ḵh̲uzāʿa, for a goats skin of wine; this is the account also given by Ibn al-Kalbl in his Kitāb al-Mat̲h̲ālib. With the advent of Islām we encounter the names of a number of persons belonging to the tribe of Ḵh̲uzāʿa, and as the conquest of Egypt and the West was principally accomplished by warriors recruited from Western Arabia it is not surprising that we find descendants of the tribe of Ḵh̲uzāʿa prominent in the newly conquered lands, especially in Spain.

That there was a great deal of confusion in the genealogies of this tribe is evident from their being at times not classed among the South-Arabian tribes at all, so e. g. the Ḳāḍī ʿIyāḍ gives the genealogy: Ḵh̲uzāʿa b. Luḥaiy b. Ḳāmaʿa b. al-Yās b. Muḍar, which Suhailī in his commentary of the Sīra tries to explain by saying that Ḥārit̲h̲a b. T̲h̲aʿlaba married the widow of his father Ḳamaʿa, who was also the mother of Luḥaiy, in which way the genealogy is correct both in deriving their origin from North and South-Arabian tribes. As regards the divisions of Ḵh̲uzāʿa there is a great amount of divergence, some genealogists mention the clans of Kaʿb, Mulaiḥ, Saʿd and Salūl, while other know only ʿAdīy, ʿAwf and Saʿd.

The great number of names of men who claimed descent from this tribe must make us believe that they were more numerous than we should conclude from the comparatively few names mentioned as companions of the Prophet, and it may be that by the time of the rise of Islām they ¶ had gradually been pushed by the more energetic Ḳurais̲h̲ into the surrounding country out of the precincts of the city of Mekka itself.

(F. Krenkow)

Bibliography

Azraḳī, Chroniken der Stadt Mekka, i. 55—64

Ibn Duraid, Kitāb al-Is̲h̲tiḳāḳ, ed. Wüstenfeld, p. 276—281

Nuwairī, ii. 317

Ḳalḳas̲h̲andī, Nihāyat al-Arab, Bag̲h̲dād, p. 205—206

al-Ṭabarī, ed. de Goeje, passim

Ḳalḳas̲h̲andī, Ṣubḥ al-Aʿs̲h̲a

Ibn His̲h̲ām, Sīra, p. 59 sqq. and many works dealing with the early history of Islām.

Citation Krenkow, F.. " K̲h̲uzāʿa." Encyclopaedia of Islam, First Edition (1913-1936). Brill Online , 2013. Reference. Jim Harlow. 10 January 2013 <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-isla...>