The “People of the North” in the Abbas Pasha Manuscript
The Abbas Pasha Manuscript (APM), in its English translation, has nineteen mentions of a Bedouin community named “the people of the north”. These mentions are often associated with names of tribes that seem to form part of this “people of the north”, such as the tribes of al-Sirhan (pages 501, 508, 511), al-Sardiyah (page 311, 449), and al-Issa (page 369).
It turns out that these three tribes formed the core of the “People of the North”, a loose alliance formed around 1750 by tribes long established in the areas of al-Balqaa (northern Transjordan) and the Hauran (southern Syria), to fend off the relentless advance of the ‘Anazah tribes from Central Arabia towards the north. The alliance was first led by the Sardiyah, a small but very noble tribe that is an offshoot of the Bani Lam and which the Ottomans had put in charge of securing the pilgrimage route from Damascus to Medina. The “People of the North” alliance also included the smaller al-Issa, al-Sirhan, and al-Fuhailiyyin tribe, as well as the larger Bani Sakhr tribe, itself then a newcomer from Central Arabia but an enemy of the ‘Anazah. The alliance first succeeded in pushing the first Anazah waves, led by some Wuld Ali sections, away from the fertile plains of Hauran and Balqaa and back to the inner desert, but was eventually swept away by subsequent, larger Anazah waves, led by the Ruwalah. The Bani Sakhr eventually terminated the leadership of the Sardiyah, and took the leadership of a much weakened “People of the North”. In the APM, “People of the North” is used a reference to any of the tribes in the alliance, minus the Bani Sakhr, which in the eyes of the Anazah, the Shammar and other larger tribes had an identity of their own.
More on some of these individual “people of the north” tribes, and their central role in the history of the Arabian horse in Northern Arabia, as I finish reading and digesting the book of Kulayb al-Fawwaz, “Lords of Hauran: the House of al-Fawwaz, shaykhs of the Sardiyah” (2017).
Before I forget: the Sardiyah (El Sardie) were the tribe that Waclaw Rzewuski lived with in 1819.
Looking at my European authors, Löffler 1860 pp. 104f. talks about “ARAB ES SCHMAAL, oder Beduinen des Nordens”, and says they are made up of the Bani Sakhr, Sirhan and Sardiyah. Not entirely certain if the Mawali and the “Arab Hadidin” (drawing a blank on them, alas for my ignorance) are also part of the Arab es Schmaal, along with the “Zaaker und Rhazzauich”, the Shammar and the Muntafiq.
Niebuhr mentions the Sardiyah, pp. 396f.:
“Man findet in der Gegend von Háleb ferner die Stämme: Beni Sachher, Dsjumlân, Beni Tôgk, Garanta, Elafchik, Et tublis, und Thai. Alle diese Stämme sollen dem von dem Pascha bestelten Emir gewisse Abgaben bes zahlen, und dafür wieder gewisse Vortheile genießen, z. E. daß sie ihre Waaren ungehindert in der Stadt verkaufen, daß sie den Kaufleuten ihre Kameele vermiethen und die Karwanen begleiten können. Die Stämme & Beni Rabeá, Beni Chaled , Elhalife , und Kiar, haben auch gewisse Rechte, sie bezahlen aber ihren Tribut nicht an den Emir, sondern an denjenigen, welchem der Páſcha die Salzwüste verpachtet hat. Es scheint also daß sie in der Gegend dieser Wüste wohnen. Der Stamm Sidsjen, ingleichen die Stamme Beni Jusof, Beni Sobad und Elhadidin sollen auch in der Wüste, welche mit zu dem Gouvernement von Háleb gerechnet wird, leben. Ich vermuthe aber, daß leztere beyde eben die Stämme sind, deren ich schon im Vorhergehenden bey der Wüste des Gouvernements Bagdad erwähnt habe, und daß sie mit ihren Heerden bald hier bald da herumziehen. Die Stamme Qas und Thai wollen Abkömmlinge von alten berühmten arabischen Stämmen seyn. Der Stamm Rabea will behaupten, daß seine Vorfahren zu der Zeit aus Jemen nach diesen nördlichen Gegenden gekommen seyn, da der Damm der Sabaer durchgebrochen. Die wahren Abkömlinge von diesem alten Stamme Rabea aber sollen sich in der Gegend von Diarbekr aufhalten, und kaum mehr bekanut seyn. Von Diar Mondar habe ich keine Nachricht erhals en können.
“Die oben erwähnten Namen der arabischen Stämme in der Gegend von Háleb erhielt ich von einem Brudersohn des regierendeu Emir oder Schech des Stammes Mauâli. Von einem arabischen Schech zu Básra, der viele Reiſen zwifchen dieser Stadt und Hâleb gemacht hatte, habe ich außer verschiedenen der vorhergehenden, auch noch folgende Namen: Beni Wähheb, Sardie, Möffarie, Salid und Haijaie. Ich vermuthe daß selbige weit von Háleb, aber nicht weit von dem Wege von dieser Stadt nach Basra wohnen.”
Burckhardt, Travels in Syria, says (p. 264) the Bani Sakhr “had for some time past been at war with the Arabs of Djebel Belka and the government of Damascus, and who were now extending their plundering incursions all over the mountain”. On p. 301 he also mentions the Sardiyah among the collectors of tribute from local villages: “The Fahely, Serdie, Beni Szakher, Serhhan, who are constant residents in the Haouran, as well as most of the numerous tribes of Aeneze, who visit the country only in the summer”.
On p. 306 he reiterates that the Sardiyeh are nomads resident in the Hauran, and says (pp. 306f.) they “move through every part ofthe country from Zerka up to the plains of Ard Zeikal, according to their relations with other tribes, their own affairs, and the state of pasturage in the different districts. The Beni Szakher generally encamp at the foot of the western mountains of Belka and the Heish, the Serhhan near them, and the Fehily and Serdie in the midst of the cultivated districts, or at a short distance from them, according to the terms they are upon with the Pasha”. He also says (p. 307): “The Fehily and Serdie are called Ahl el Dyrel, or national Arabs, and pay tribute to the Pasha, who, however, is often at war with them for with-holding it, or for plundering his troops or the Fellahs.”
On pp. 56f. Burckhardt mentions the name of a Sardiyah leader, as well as noting that they had well-bred horses:
“In approaching Ezra we met a troop of about eighty of the Pasha’s cavalry; they had, the preceding night, surprised the above-mentioned party of Arabs Serdie in the village of Walgha, and had killed Aerar, their chief, and six others, whose heads they were carrying with them in a sack. They had also taken thirty-one mares, of which the greater number were of the best Arabian breeds.”
He also says that while he was in Syria, the Bani Sakhr were at war with the Ottoman government in Damascus, the Adwan and the Ruwalah (p. 355), and gives more details on the conflicts on p. 368:
“The chief tribe in this province, for many years, was the Adouan, but they are now reduced to the lowest condition by their inveterate enemies the Beni Szakher. The latter, whose abode had for a long space of time been on the Hadj road, near Oella, were obliged, by the increasing power of the Wahabi, to retire towards the north. They approached the Belka, and obtained from the Adouan, who were then in possession of the excellent pasturage of this country, permission to feed their cattle here, on paying a small annual tribute. They soon proved, however, to be dangerous neighbours; having detached the greater part of the other tribes of the Belka from their alliance with the Adouan, they have finally succeeded in driving the latter across the Zerka, notwithstanding the assistance which they received from the Pasha of Damascus. Peace had been made in 1810, and both tribes had encamped together near Amman, when Hamoud el Szaleh, chief of the Adouan, made a secret arrangement with the Pasha’s troops, and the tribe of Rowalla, who were at war with the Beni Szakher, to make a united attack upon them. The plot was well laid, but the valour of the Beni Szakher proved a match for the united forces of their enemies; they lost only about a dozen of their horsemen, and about two thousand sheep, and since that time an inveterate enmity has existed between the Beni Szakher and the Adouan. The second chief of Adouan, an old man with thirteen sons, who always accompany him to the field, joined the Beni Szakher, as did also the greater part of the Arabs of the Belka. In 1812, the Adouan were driven into the mountains of Adjeloun, and to all appearance will never be able to re-enter the Belka.”
Interesting to read in this account that part of the Adwan seem to have been absorbed by the Bani Sakhr.
Tristram 1865 pp. 486-90 lists the Bedouin tribes from Galilee to south of the Dead Sea, saying “the topography of the tribes has entirely changed since Burckhardt and even Dr. Robinson wrote”. Of the Sardiyah, he says they are “unimportant” (p. 487). The Bani Sakhr have two sections: the smaller one is “ruled by Sheikh
Gerouân-el-Melham. They are a fraction who seceded a few years ago from the main body of the tribe under Sheikhs Abdallah and Ali, on account of want of pasturage and an indisposition to obey the strict rule of those chiefs. Though but a fragment of that immense clan, they can muster 1,000 cavalry, and always join their brethren when a raid or war is on the move. They have obtained their present possessions gradually, and in great measure by driving out the fellâhin, destroying their villages, and reducing their rich corn-fields to pasturage. Latterly, however, they have also encroached much on the S’hoor and Beni Hassan” (pp. 487f.).
On the rest of the Bani Sakhr, he says (p. 489):
“Behind the Beni Hamêdi, the Adwân, and Beni Hassan, and down the Belka beyond and behind Kerak, lies the vast pasture ground of the Beni Sakk’r, who also
claim and hold large tracts in the centre of North Arabia. They completely flank all these tribes as far as the Hauran, in that vast rich plain, none of which is desert, moving constantly with countless flocks, herds, and camels. They have for centuries been a very strong tribe, but from some unexplained cause have increased in the last fifty years to an unexampled pitch of prosperity and wealth, both in population and cattle. They do not themselves know how many thousand horsemen they can bring into action; but their restlessness is accounted for by the difficulty of finding pasturage. … When, in 1863, they encamped in the Ghor, just before their raid on the plain of Esdraelon, their tents, like the Midianites’, covered the ground for miles, far as the eye could reach from the Mount of Beisan, and in a week there was not a green blade to be seen, where before the arrival of these locusts one stood knee-deep in the rank herbage.”
Tristram calls the Adwan (p. 488) “a small, but very haughty and tenacious tribe, who hold the country about Es Salt (Ramoth Gilead), Gerash, Ammân (Rabbah), and Heshban. They are reputed to be of the noblest blood in Arabia, and can trace their descent for 1,600 years at least. Yet they can bring only 300 cavalry into the field, and of these scarcely more than one half are of pure Adwân blood. Their policy has always been not to intermeddle in the feuds of their neighbours, but rigorously to hold to their right of excluding every one from their own territory, making even the peaceful transit of another tribe across their lands the pretext for relentless war.”
As same what i told you before it in The conversation that was with you.Especially in the hadith about Ibn Ramla al-Sarhan (Saqlawiyah Najmiya or Saqlawiyah Najma al-Subh), which later devolved into the people of the mountain, which includes (Al-Masa’id, Sardiyya, Druze and others) and then devolved into the Rula tribe, and from this text it is clear that Ibn Ramlah was still… He is alive and heads the Al-Sarhan tribe – Halaf /, the north with the Sardiyya, led by Al-Mahfouz Al-Sardi, the Arabs of Al-Fahiliyah, Al-Issa and Al-Fadl, Banu Sakhr, led by Al-Kharisha, and I think Salem bin Hanif Al-Kharisha, the grandfather of Sheikh Hadith Ali Al-Kharisha. This means that Ibn Ramlat al-Sarhan was alive until the year 1750, and that al-Rawla came after or during this date. There is an interesting text in the book Clans of the Levant by Ahmed Wasfi Zakaria, where he says (There is rampant hostility between the Awlad Ali tribe and the Rula tribe, and the reason is that the Awlad Ali tribe sees in itself that it is the first tribe (that preceded) the Rula tribe for 60 – 70 years and more).
I think this is generally correct, but in my view the 60 or 70 years difference (as mentioned by Ahmad Wasfi Zakariyah) between the Wuld Ali going North and the Ruwalah going North is too much. That time difference was less than that. The Ruwalah came north from Khaibar under Dray’i ibn Shaalan in 1225 hijri or 1810 CE.
The Wuld Ali went north just after the Manabihah (Hssinah and others, who were the first Anazah to go north), or almost at the same time, at the time of the battle when they killed al-Mahfouz al-Sardi. The Manabihah went North after the big drought of 1182 hijri or 1768 CE.
Meaning that time difference is probably 35-40 years to 60-70.
What you said is correct and logical with regard to the presence of the Rula tribe in the north between the years 1175-1182 hijri, that is, between 1762-1768 CE, but before Al-Dari’i Al-Shaalan.. The migration occurred during the time of Abdullah Al-Rudaini Al-Shaalan, and he was the one who led them towards the north, and Abdullah Al-Rudaini, by the way, is one of Munif’s youngest sons. Al-Shaalan was mentioned in the manuscript on the authority of Kahilah al-Muradi and Saqlawiyah al-Samniyya, which he took from al-Dhafeer, or vice versa. According to what was reported by writer and author Fayez Al-Ruwaili, Al-Rudaini Al-Shaalan died in the year 1199 hijri, equivalent to the year 1785 CE.
By the way, the presence of the tribe of Al-Walad Ali, Al-Manabha, Al-Hasna, Al-Kham’ala, Al-Fadaan, and Al-Saba’a is much older than Al-Rula, according to the testimony of many, since the time of Ibn Ya’ish, the sheikh of Al-Masalikh, and Sheikh Khalaf Al-Fadaani in Iraq, and then Sheikh Fadel Al-Mazyad Al-Mulhim and his son Abdullah. It has been narrated that Fadel Al-Mulhim died in the year 1193 hijri/1780 CE and was more than a hundred years old. Which means he was born approximately 1680 CE.
The greatest evidence of this is the purchase by the British Consul in Aleppo, Thomas Darley Al-Ma’naqi Sabili, nicknamed (Darley Arabian), the grandfather of the Thruybred horses from the Al-Fadaan tribe, Anza, specifically in the year 1703 CE…which means that the Al-Fadaan, Al-Walad Ali, Al-Manabaha, Al-Masalikh, Al-Kham’ala, and Al-Sabaa preceded their cousins from Anza (Al-Amarat, Al-Rula). To emigrate since that date.
Oh, do we know that the Darley was a Ma’naqi Sbayli? I’ve only read the 21 December 1703 letter from Thomas Darley where he says “He is about fifteen hands high, of the most esteemed race among the Arabs, both by sire and dam, and the name is called Mannicka”, no sub-strain. Is there more information on the horse’s purchase?
Ahmad,
The information that Darley Arabian was from the Fadaan is not true. It looks like an invention by Lady Wentworth. There is no source for it.
Also, the information that he was Sbaili is not true. The Sbaili branch of Manaqi did not exist back in 1703.
Why 1750 if the Abbas Pasha Manuscript was produced around 1850 and you say Ibn Ramlah was alive then?
What is strange about this matter? The manuscript was originally based on the testimonies of elderly people and those who lived through the events and passed them down orally from their fathers and fathers, citing their grandfathers, and there are many examples of that.
Was Shahwan bin Mansur bin Dhigham present when he was cited in the manuscript?
Was Fayyad al-Dharba present at the time when he was cited in the manuscript?
Was Sheikh Fadel Al-Mazyad Al-Mulhim present at the time of the work of Abbas Pasha’s delegation committee to the Arabian Peninsula during the drafting of
(the manuscript later)?
Was Ubaika Ibn Rabi’ah, the owner of Al-Ubayyah Al-Sharaqiya, present when
the committee worked?
Was Salem Al-Abd, grandfather of Rakan bin Hathlin, present when Abbas Pasha’s committee was asked about the origin of Al-Dahman Al-Abd, knowing that Salem Al-Abd was a contemporary of the first Saudi state during the time of Abdullah bin Muhammad Al Saud, grandfather of Faisal bin Turki on his father’s side, Turki bin Abdullah?
In talking about Dahman Shahwan – Dahman Salem Al-Abd:
Hazal Ibn Busais was asked about the dahma, and he stated its ancient connection and its origin/origin of its stud. To Shahwan and passed to (Saeed Al-Shahrani) from Shahwan and moved from Shahwan to Salem Al-Abd. First: Salem Al-Abd, Rakan’s fourth grandfather, Rakan was born in 1814, and from Rakan to his grandfather Salem, there are 4 generations, and for each generation there are 30 years, 1,814−4×30. Thus, his grandfather Salem Al-Abd, born in 1694 CE, is certain. It is certain that Salem Al-Abd and Shahwan bin Dhaigham (Shahwan is another character different from Shahwan bin Mansour) Al-Dhaighmi, the author of a well-known biography in the seventh century AH, was certainly alive until the middle of the seventeenth century CE. The historical author, Ali bin Saad Al Hasusa, who is from the Ubaida Qahtan tribe, brothers to Al-Dhayaghm from their mother, mentioned that (there is a text that clarifies and mentions that Shahwan bin Dhaygham was alive until the year 1171 Hijri , and this is consistent with the manuscript of Abbas Pasha in the stories of Dahham Ibn Shabakan and Ibn Mushayt. From the tribe of Shahran and Ibn Shaflut, from Ubaida Qahtan, Al-Salem, Rafidah Qahtan, Dahm Al-Abd, and Dahm Al-Kunihar, Which makes the result that they are all at similar levels of era, time and age.
Was Hamdan Al-Muraikhi the father of Badah And his relative Salal as well present at the time of fact-finding – during the work of Abbas Pasha’s committee and its preparation and drafting of the
manuscript?
Rather, hamdan was assassinated in the Battle of Kiir in the year 1195 hijri , 1781 CE,
Let us leave all of this… Speaking about Duhaim Al-Najib: Were Watban Al-Dawish present, and Mujhim Al-Dubaie as well, and they were from the era of the twelfth century Hijri. Eyewitnesses described the incident of the capture of Mujhim Al-Dubaie of Ibn Aliwi Al-Hubaish from Ajman, knowing that there are two different times between the era of the witnesses and the perpetrators of the incident (Mujhim, Ibn Aliwi Al-Hubaishi, and Watban Al-Dawish).
In the same conversation about Al-Dhaim Al-Najib: When asked by Hizam bin Hathlin, Hizam Al-Sayfi Al-Hubaishi, Muhammad bin Salem Sheikh Al-Hadi from Ajman, Rashid bin Dhanbouh from the Safran Al-Ajman family, and all the major residents of Ajman about the origin of Al-Dahim Al-Najib, they answered with a statement that almost makes everyone certain that it occurred more than 400 years ago. Before the arrival of thos people on the face of the world, or even before the arrival of Abbas Pasha’s committee to search for the origin of the dāhim, but these are merely testimonies that they passed down orally from their.
fathers and grandfathers.
it terned into from Al-Jalas (Rula) tribe to Thuwaini Al-Saadoun, the sheikh of Al-Muntafiq. He requested it during the days of Al-Thuwaini bin Saadoun’s Walking on Najd with cannons during the time of Abdulaziz bin Saud, and its ownership was later transferred to Ibn Ajraf from Al-Aslam from Shammar in the year when the Anza tribe took Howdah Mutlaq Al-Jarba)
A question: Was Al-Thuwaini bin Saadoun alive when the manuscript was being made? Knowing that he was assassinated in Najd in the year 1785 during the time of Abdulaziz bin Saud Therefore, it is in fact more than 60 years after the manuscript was made. Was Mutlaq al-Jarba alive, knowing that he was assassinated at the hands of Sheikh Khuzaym bin Lahyan from al-Barazat from the Asahul tribe, the owner of (Al-Dahma al-Majaliyya), in the year 1798 during his battle with Wahhabism? Was Abdulaziz bin Muhammad bin Saud alive during the making of the manuscript, who was assassinated in the year? 1803 by a Shiite
Kurd in his mosque in Diriyah.
Considering Al-Saqlawiyah Ibn Zubain/known as Al-Samniyyat. The incident of Fadel Al-Mazyad Al-Mulhim’s exposure to the Al-Uqaylat caravan, specifically Hamad Al-Bassam, has been mentioned, and it was later called Al-Bassamiyat for Al-Bassam, one of the Al-Uqaylat people from the Qassim region in Najd. Was Fadel Al-Mazyad alive when he wrote the manuscript, knowing that the year of the incident dates back to the middle of the seventeenth century CE ? Also, Hamad Al-Bassam is an early member of the Uqailat tribe, and he worked in trade before the middle of the seventeenth century CE. In the same manuscript, and at the heart of the subject, on the authority of Saqlawiyah Ibn Zubain, there is a mention of Saud bin Abdulaziz bin Muhammad bin Saud, which he gave to his father-in-law, Saif Al-Ajaji, from Al-Khatran, from Bani Lam… knowing that Saif Al-Ajaji was one of the people of the twelfth century Hijri.
In a comment by Ibrahim bin Bassam, the chief of Basasma, on the story of Saqlawiyah Ibn Zubin: I did not recognize Hamad Al-Bassam as my cousin (i.e. he did not meet his cousin’s time – that is, he did not contemporize him). Perhaps it is clear that his cousin is at least a century older than him.
If he mentions the times, it is not a strange matter and it is not a forbidden matter so that none of them can determine it or even approximate it to the time they were in at the time of writing the manuscript. So, Muhammad bin Hadi bin Qarmalah has determined the era between him and Shahwan bin Dhaigham (it belongs to Ubaidah and Shahwan from Ubaidah, and it has been preserved from Shahwan until now and from Shahwan to our era seventeen generations). Muhammad bin Hadi lived between 1180 and 1287 AH, so the mathematical calculation is 1,180−17×30=670 AH.