A contemporary account of a battle between the Dhafeer and Sharif Hamud ibn ‘Abdallah in 1668-1670
[I revised this article several times, the last time on June 16, 2020]
The subject of this article is a battle between the Dhafeer Bedouin tribe and the Sharif Hamud Ibn ‘Abdallah either in the year 1667-68 Hijrdi (1078 Hijri) or 1669-1670 CE (1080 Hijri), depending on the sources. This episode is relevant to understanding the beginnings of the Hadban and Hamdani strains in Arabian horses. Both strains find their origins with the Dhafeer.
Some context first: The Sharifs (Arabic plural ashraaf) are the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, which have over time come to form a special social group. In the Hijaz region of Arabia, the ashraaf have turned this special social status into political power. Different branches competed for the rulership of Mecca, with frequent conflicts. The Sharif Hamud never ruled Mecca. He was a cousin and a serious rival to the ruling Sharif, Sa’ad ibn Zaid whose rule began in 1666-7. Here is British explorer and historian Gerald De Gaury on this contested nomination episode and the ensuing conflict between Sa’ad ibn Zaid and his rival Hamud:
“Sa’d it was, who in the end received the Sultan’s approval, and Hamud in consequence at once left Mecca for Wadi al-Marr. From there he began a campaign of terrorizing Mecca […]; so, he hoped, to create disorder and dissatisfaction with Sa’ad’s rule. At the same time Hamud claimed that Sa’ad had promised him a large sum of money should he become Sherif […]. Hamud thereupon determined upon raising his case before the Sultan, sending representatives for this purpose, with gifts, to Umr Pasha, Governor of Egypt […].
These gifts, sent in 1078 Hijri (1667-8 CE) are six Arabian mares: a Kuhaylah, a Hadbah, a Bughaylah, this one a strain now extinct, and three unidentified others. It did not work in the end. De Gaury continues:
Hamud thus was able to continue his career as a kind of Arabian Robin Hood, successfully fighting as far afield as the deserts frequented by the Anaiza [sic], Awazim, Mutair and Dhafir tribes of Al Nejd, far over in the east of the Peninsula. It was not until 1670, after the battle of Al Nasar, that at last Hamud came to Taif to swear eternal friendship with Sa’ad […].
On to the account of the battle between Hamud and the Dhafeer. I translated it from the Arabic book ‘Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd (“History of Najd”), by ‘Uthman ibn ‘Abdallah Ibn Bishr al-Hanbali. In his book, Ibn Bishr quoted excerpts from an earlier chronicle, Samt al-Nujum al-A’aali, by Meccan historian ‘Abd al-Malil Hussain al-‘Issami (born 1049 hijri, died 1111 hijri, equivalent to 1639/1640 -1699/1700 CE). Al-‘Issami may have even witnessed some of these events, which were within his lifetime. Here is what he wrote:
In the year 1080 [Hijri], was the battle of the Sharif Hamud Ibn ‘Abdallah Ibn Hassan with the Dhafeer. Before it there were several battles, the battle with ‘Anazah, the battle with Bani Hussain [now a part of the Dhafeer], the battle with Hutaim al-‘Awazim, the battle with Mutayr, and others. The reason [of the battle with the Dhafeer] is:
The tribe of al-Smida [one of the two sub-tribes] of the Dhafeer had sided with the party of Hamud [i.e., against the Sharif of Mecca Sa’ad ibn Zaid]. Their paramount shaykh, Salamah Ibn Suwayt also joined him [i.e., joined Hamud] later, with his close followers.
A criminal offence had been committed by the Dhafeer, which required that they be penalized in the habitual way for them, and that is [by having to surrender to Hamud, that “Arabian Robin Hood”] al-sha’thaa, the choicest from their foremost herd of camels and al-na’amah, the choicest from the next best herd. They did not accept.
So Salamah Ibn Suwayt offered that Hamud takes him hostage [instead], and said: “By God, you will take from them [i.e., from the Dhafeer] what you want”. Hamud replied: “By God, no!”[i.e., no to taking him hostage]. So Salamah left to join his people. They had been readying for battle. So were Hamud, his paternal cousins, the Smidah, and the ‘Adwan [another Hijazi tribe]. Then the Smidah withdrew, the two sides met, the two parties clashed, and the Sharifs Zayn al-‘Abidin ibn ‘Abdallah, Ahmad ibn Hasan ibn ‘Abdallah, and Shanbah ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Abdallah [brothers and nephews of Hamud] were killed.
Then Ghalib ibn Zamil [checking who that is] attacked them [not sure who is “them” in this case] at dawn after a while and killed sixty of them. The war and skirmishes between them [the party of Hamud] and the Dhafeer went on until the Sharif Ahmad ibn Zaid [The Sharif of Mecca’s brother] got them to make peace. The end.
The battle recounted by al-‘Issami could well be the famous “battle of the Sharif” in the Abbas Pasha Manuscript account of the Dhafiri bedouin Ghadir al-Simri about the Hamdaniyah Simriyah. In this case, the origin of the Hamdani Simri strain would be around 1670.
Interestingly, Bruce Ingham, in his “Bedouins of North Arabia: Traditions of the al-Dhafeer” (published in 1986, fieldwork 1977-82) reported a very similar oral tradition shared by his Dhafeer informants. However, the oral tradition ascribes the events to the time of Salamah ibn Suwayt’s ancestor, Hamdan the Blind. By the way, I would not be surprised if the Hamdani strain did take its name after this Hamdan the Blind, but this is speculation only at this stage.
Najdi chronicler Ibn Bishr reported another battle between Hamud and the Dhafeer, two years earlier, in 1667-8 CE, which may have been the same episode al-‘Issami was referring to:
in this year [1078 hijri] a battle between the Dhafeer and the ashraaf from the family of ‘Abdallah [i.e., Hamud ibn ‘Abdallah, his brothers and nephews] took place and the Dhafeer killed many of them.
If that battle indeed took place on that year, it would be the same year Hamud sent the Hadba to the Ottoman governor of Egypt. To recapitulate:
1666-7: Sa’ad ibn Zaid took over as Sharif of Mecca. His cousin Hamud ibn ‘Abdallah contested his legitimacy, rebelled and withdrew to the desert with his followers.
1667-8: Hamud sent six mares to the Ottoman governor of Egypt, including a Hadba (then a recently created Dhafeer strain), to sway him to this side.
1667-8, according to Ibn Bishr, or 1669-70, according to al-‘Issami: battle episodes between Hamud and the Dhafeer.
1670: Hamud and the Sharif of Mecca Sa’ad ibn Zaid made peace.
So Hamdani Simri traced to around 1670 and Turki Ibn Sa’ud recovered this marbat from Al Sani tribe (after Ibn Ghorab from the Shammar who get it from Ibn Ja’d d’al-Jad’ah d’Anazah) to around 1800?
Yes, but not from the al-Sani’ tribe, rather from the ‘Ataiba/Oteiba tribe who had a group of sani’ (des artisans) like most tribes. Turki Ibn Saud was born in 1755 and died in 1834. His reign was 1819-20 and 1824-34. He was murdered by his cousin Mishari, who ruled for a short while. Then came his son Faisal Ibn Turki who ruled 1834-38, then again 1843-65.
In the Shammar, the sani’ are the Maraziq.
I am going to continue updating this article, it is not finished.
So Salamah ibn Suwayt, even though he had joined the Sharif, was happy to offer up restitution for the Dhafeer’s offence from his own group/section, if I’m following this correctly. I presume he was trying to avert the battle, and when that was unsuccessful, he went back to the rest of the Dhafeer?
Almost. I revised the text to clarify. Salamah had sided with the Sharif before there was a reason for any battle. Much of the tribe (freshly emerged from the disintegrated Bani Lam) was restive. The tribe had committed some offense outside the realm of Dhafeer tribal law (e.g., robbing a trade caravan, robbing pilgrims, or attacking a tribe friendly to the Sharif). By refusing to be held accountabley for this offense, they had entered into a state of open rebellion against his authority. Salamah wanted to avert war, so he offered himself as a hostage. The Sharif refused, so war became the only option. Salamah was not bound by his offer anymore, so he joined his tribe as it readied for war.
Note how this happened in 1670-1, two years after the same Sharif Hamud offered the Hadba to the governor of Cairo. Salamah ibn Suwayt having joined that particular Sharif, and the Hadba being a line of the Suwayt, it becomes easy to imagine the Hadba going from the Suwayt to the Sharif as part of that alliance.
Thank you, I get it now! And yes, it does seem quite plausible that the Hadba went from the Suwayt to Sharif Hamud thanks to Salamah ibn Suwayt’s alliance with him.
Having done some background reading, I see that the hostilities between the Sharifs and the Dhafeer went on until the mid-1680s, if they only ceased when Ahmad ibn Zaid was the Sharif of Mecca.
where did you find that?
Well, at the end of the passage from al-‘Issami, he says, “The war and skirmishes between them [the party of Hamud] and the Dhafeer went on until the Sharif Ahmad ibn Zaid [The Sharif of Mecca’s brother] got them to make peace.” I found the dates of Ahmad ibn Zaid’s rule as Sharif of Mecca on that most reliable of sources, Wikipedia, which says he was Sharif from 1684-1688. While hunting to find my original source, I did come across another, different list of the Sharifs of Mecca (also on Wikipedia!), which sees Ahmad ibn Zaid as Sharif twice, first as co-ruler with his brother Sa’ad (1669-1672), and then alone, in the 1680s.
I see. There is no indication however, that the Ahmad ibn Zaid was Sharif of Mecca (as opposed to just Sharif) when he brokered that peace agreement.
Yes, I get that now, thanks to your explanatory note on Sharif Hamud never ruling Mecca. This post has been a learning experience!