[i3i]

CHAPTER 1

The Progress through Egypt in the Middle Ages of

certain Arab Tribes now represented in the Sudan

I At the time of the rise of the prophet Muhammad in the first

half of the seventh century a.d. the tribes of Arabia were considered

to fall into two great main groups, the one descended from Kahtan

("Joctan") the son of 'Abir and the other from his brother Fahg,

the biblical "Peleg, in whose days the earth was divided."

The first of these groups formed the " 'Arab el 'Ariba," the older and more exclusive Kahtanite or Yemenite stock : they were counted

the true Arabs, and their original home was the southern portion of

the peninsula. They consisted of two branches, one descended from Himyar and one from Kahlan^.

The second and more northernly group, the "Arab el

Must'ariba," traced their descent through 'Adnan to Isma'il, that

is Ishmael the son of Abraham, and in consequence are generally known as the Isma'ilitic or Adnanite stock^.

II The most important division of the Himyaritic branch of Kahtan was that descended from Kuda'a: it included such important tribes

as the Beli, the Beni Kelb and the Guhayna^.

The Kahlan branch also contained several famous tribes. The

best known of these were Tai, including Gudham and Lakhm, MuDHHiG, Hamdan, Bagila and el Azd. The last-named again

contained the two great Ghassanite tribes of el Aus and el Khazrag, who were later to be known as "el Ansar," the "Helpers" [of the

Prophet]

.

III The chief Isma'ilitic tribes were those of Kays 'Aylan, Rabi'a, Kenana, Wail (a section of Rabi'a), Sulaym, Hawazin, Ghatafan, Tamim, and the Prophet's own tribe of Kuraysh. Kuraysh, itself

^ The term "Himyarite" is, however, used frequently as though it were co- extensive with "Kahtanite."

- Robertson Smith casts the gravest doubts upon the whole system of Arab genealogies (see Kinship and Marriage... Chap. i). It is not at all improbable that he is right, but, even so, though many of the assertions of the genealogists may be incredible as literal statements of fact, yet they have considerable value if understood

in a figurative sense— if, in other words, they are taken as parables. It is in this

liberal sense that the statements made categorically in these chapters must often be taken.

^ Robertson Smith points out that as a matter of fact the Himyaritic origin of I^uda'a, though generally accepted by later Arab historians, is extremely doubtful, and that the older authorities refer to them as Isma'ilitic.

9—2