Musaylima: An Approach to the Social Anthropology of Seventh Century Arabia

Author(s): Dale F. Eickelman

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Jul., 1967),
pp. 17-52
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3596357 .
Accessed: 08/12/2011 02:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient.

http://www.jstor.org
 MUSAYLIMA
AN APPROACHTO THE SOCIALANTHROPOLOGY
OF SEVENTH CENTURY ARABIA*
BY

DALE F. EICKELMAN
(University of Chicago)

One of the most significantand leastanalyzedaspectsof the Ridda,

or "apostasy",which occurredin the last yearsof Muhammad'slife
and in the caliphateof Abi Bakr(632-634) is the fact that the most
adamantoppositionto the incipientreligious-economic-political
system
of Islam in all regions of Arabiaexcept al-Bahraynand 'Umin was
directedby the so-called"falseprophets",four of whom are known
byname:al-Aswad
(Yemen), b. Khuwaylid
Tulayha (B.Asad),Sadjih
(B. Tamim), and Musaylimab. IHabib(al-Yamima)1).
The most significantof these "falseprophets",and the one on whom
the most informationis available,is Musaylima.With an army of
allegedly 40,000 men he crushed two Muslim armies before being
overwhelmedby a third,underthe MuslimgeneralKhilid b. al-Walid2).
V. V. Bartholdand W. MontgomeryWatt, among others, have assessed
Musaylima'smovement to have been the most serious threat faced by
the nascent Islamicstate3).
With the exceptionof V. V. Barthold,scholarsdealing with the
firsthalf of the seventhcenturyin Arabiahavenot examinedin detail
*) My thanks are due to the following persons for readingand offeringsuggestions
on an earlierversion of this article: Dr. C. J. Adams, Director, Institute of Islamic
Studies, McGill University (Canada);Dr. Bruce Trigger, Department of Anthropo-
logy, McGill University; Dr. James Fernandez, Department of Anthropology,
Dartmouth College (U.S.A.); and Dr. IbrahimAbu Lughud, Departmentof Govern-
ment, Smith College (U.S.A.).
I) V. V. Barthold, "Musaylima",Bulletinde l'AcaddmiedesSciencesde Russie,XIX
(1925), 493; W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina (Oxford, 1962), p. 148;
also SEI.
2) Tabari, Ta'rih, p. 1730; L. Caetani, Annali dell' Iskldm
(Milan, 1907), Vol. II
(I), p. 452.
3) Barthold, 493; Watt, Medina,p. I36.
JESHo, X 2
I18 DALE F. EICKELMAN

the source materials on Musaylima's movement-its formation, its

membership,its organization,and the question of why it offered such
bitter resistanceto incorporationin the Islamicmovement even when
militarydefeatwas imminent.
The contributionof a study of Musaylimato our knowledgeof
Islamichistory and of seventhcenturyArabiais manifold.Not sur-
prisingly(sinceMusaylima's movementwas the mostimportantone of
the Ridda),an understandingof Musaylima'smovementis a key to
understanding the natureof the resistanceto Islamicexpansionduring
the Ridda.The assertionof the traditionalMuslimhistoriansthat the
Riddawasa periodof religiousapostasyhasbeenregardedas untenable
by most contemporary scholars; it is unlikely that more than a few
tribes surrounding Mecca and Medina were converts to Islim by the
time of the Prophet'sdeath1). Howeverno alternativedetailedanalysis
of the oppositionto Islamhas been broughtforward.This studywill
attemptto fill that gap as far as the sourceswill permit.
Thisarticlehasa second,moregeneralized purpose-to treatMusay-
lima'smovementas a case study of a "religiousrevitalizationmove-
ment"whichfailed2). Thusit will be of interestnot onlyto thehistorian
of seventhcenturyArabia,but to the socialanthropologist,interested
in "theoreticalconceptualization that is not necessarilylimitedin its
validityto the one caseat hand"3). In discussingthe sociologyof the
contemporary MiddleEast, C. A. O. van Nieuwenhuijzehas pointed
to the growingtrendto synthesizethe approachesof variousacademic
disciplines.A similartrend has occurredin the last decadeor so in
studiesof seventhcenturyArabia.The work of MontgomeryWattin
Englandand Joseph Chelhodin Franceare perhapsthe best-known
attemptsto combinethe approachof the historianwith that of the

i) Caetani, pp. ff.; Hitti, History of the Arabs, 8th ed. (London, 1964),
85o
p. 141; Watt, Medina, pp. 79-80; Barthold, 484-485.
2) See A. F. C. Wallace, "Revitalization Movements", AmericanAnthropologist,
LVIII (1956), 265.
3) C. A. O. van Nieuwenhuijze, "Some Thoughts on the Present State of the
Sociology of the Middle East", Der Islam, XLI (1963), 2.
 MUSAYLIMA 19

social anthropologist1). Hopefully this articlewill show how the social

anthropological approach can contribute substantially to an under-
standing of events in seventh century Arabia, and encourage other
social anthropologists to deal with the relativelyabundant resource
materialsfor this period.
Sources
Given Musaylima's role as a "false prophet", it must be asked
whetherthere are historiographic problemspeculiarto the material
on him whichwouldrenderfruitlessany detailedanalysis.
One criticalobjectionwhichhas beenraisedis thatall narratorsand
reportersof eventsconcerningMusaylimawere Muslim,had an anti-
Musaylimabias,andthereforemustbe regardedas unreliable.In many
waysthis biasis an advantage,for unlikeeventscompletelywithinthe
Islimic movementreportedby variousfactionsof Muslimsto their
own advantage,all reportersof Musaylima'sactionshave the same
bias againsthim. Thus one need not speculateas to which factiona
particularreporterbelonged.The finaltest of validitymustcome after
the accountsrelevantto Musaylimaaredividedinto subjectcategories:
geographicaldata,al-YamimabeforeMusaylima,militarycampaigns,
B. Hanifa relationswith other non-Muslimgroups in Musaylima's
time, Musaylima'srevelationsand religious teachings and when,
vis-a-visMuhammad, Musaylimafirstclaimedprophecy.The last two
categoriesare the ones in whichobviouslydistortedor fabricateddata
are most likely to be found. "Miracle"storiesand other inventions
abound within these two categoriesto prove the "uniqueness"of
Muhammad, andgreatcautionmustbe exercisedby the historian.
In the remaining subject categories the sources show few, if any,
signs of consciousdistortion.Nothing would be gained or lost by
manipulatingthem, unlikethe sensitivequestionof when Musaylima
claimedprophecy.The preservationof many detailsunfavorableto
Muslims,such as the taunts of Meccansthat Muhammadwas an

I) Watt, Medina,pp. v-vi; Chelhod, Introduction

a la Sociologiede l'Islam (Paris,
195 8), pp. vii-viii.
20 DALE F. EICKELMAN

"imitator"of Musaylima,are signs of an attempt at impartialreporting

of tradition. In the accounts of the campaigns against Musaylima,
serious Muslim shortcomingsare recorded.To the discreditof Khilid's
perspicacity,all traditionsreportthatthe nobles(shurafa')
of B.
I.anifa
won a lenient truce for themselvesaftertheir defeatat the battle of
'Akrabi',by dressingB. Hanifawomenin men'sclothingand lining
them along the walls of al-IHadjr, Musaylima'scapitalcity. Khiid,
unwilling to risk another fiercebattle,accededto an armisticerather
thanobeyAbi Bakr'sordersto killalladultmalemembersof thetribe').
Likewiseaccountsof the alliancesof the B. Hanifawithadjoiningtribes
and of relationsamongthe varioussubdivisionsof B. Hanifaappear
accurate.To falsifythe complicatedinterrelationsbetweenthesegroups
(as far as they can be known),Muslimand non-Muslim,would have
distortedthe entirepictureof tribalrelationsas portrayedby recent
authors 2), and could be detected by carefulcross-checking.
Some efforts were made by later generations of B. Hanifa to cover
up the "apostate" activities of their ancestors, but these fabrications
were recognized as such by the Muslim chroniclersthemselves.
for instance, cites some verses of 'Ali, son of Hawdha (d. 629)Y.ikit,
of the
B. Hanifa3). 'Ali lived throughthe defeatof Musaylima.In one of his
poemshe defendshis tribefromabjuringthe faithof Islamduringthe
Riddaas had othertribes.Yikiit was awareof the falsenessof 'Ali's
verses,andin fairnessto 'Ali, also quoteshimas saying:"Wehadbeen
deceived.O! If only our deceivershadno children!" 4).
While not minimizing the problems involved, it can be concluded
that the textualproblemsrelatingto the accountsof Musaylimaare
roughlythe samewhichplagueall documentswhichpertainto seventh
centuryArabia.Carefullyutilized,theyshedconsiderable
light on many
aspectsof Musaylima'smovement.Lacunaeremain,but these maybe
due moreto a lackof interestby the Muslimchroniclersin a religious

I) Barthold, 5oz02ff.
2) The most comprehensive account is given in Watt, Medina,pp. 78-Io0.
3) Hawdha was ruler of mostof B. Hanifa prior to Musaylima.
4) Cited in Barthold, 495.
 MUSAYLIMA 2I

movement which failed, than a conscious attempt to suppress infor-

mation on all aspects of it.
With only a few exceptions, the European sources which have dealt
with Musaylimahave done so only tangentiallyor with insufficientana-
lysis of the evidence available.To consider the major writers of this
century, Margoliouth (1903) ~) and Lyall (1903) 2) referred to Musay-
lima in the course of their controversy over the etymological "origin"
of the terms "Muslim" and "Hanif" (in their context, pre-Islimic
monotheist), both ratherunconvincingly basing their arguments upon
a number of assumptions not justified by the limited quantity and
quality of the data available. Their arguments are considered later.
Caetani (1907) in his monumental Annali dell' Isldm reproduced the
traditions known to him regardingMusaylima,but failed to integrate
his overall concept, that "the almost successfulmovementof Musaylima
should be considered as an event synchronous and parallel to Islam,
created by analogous causes"3), with his evidence. In fact, Caetani's
treatmentof Musaylimahas been regardedby Barthold as perhapsthe
"least successful" part of the Annali4). Barthold's account (1925) is
by far the most comprehensive,reconstructingthe historical events as
far as the evidence allows, and thoroughly reviewing and criticizing
all previous European and Muslim scholarship on the question. His
gathering of citations in relating to al-Yamima which are not
Y.kfit of Mu'djam al-Bulddnis particularly
found in Wiistenfeld's index
useful. Biihl's summaryfor the first El 5) was intended only as a brief
summaryof common historical fact; Montgomery Watt, although he
demurs that he treats the problem "only so far as concerns the life of
Muhammad"6), nevertheless makes several incisive observations on
Musaylima'smovement, some of which I will develop in this article.

I) "On the Origin and Import of the Names Muslim and JHanif",JRAS,XXXV
(1903), 467-493.
2) "The Words 'Hanif 'and 'Muslim'", JRAS, XXXV, 771-784.
3) P. 643.
4) 485.
5) Reproduced in SEI, p. 416.
6) Medina,pp. I36-I37.
22 DALE F. EICKELMAN

Werner Caskel's work on the tribal groupings of eastern Arabia in

the sixth and seventh centuriesis valuablefor making sense of the tribal
groupings in al-Yam~ma1).
Preludeto theseventhcenturyin Arabia
Historians dealing with sixth and seventh century Arabia have
tended to dichotomizetheir materialsinto "pre-Islamic"and "Islimic".
In discussing the Islamic Weltanschauung this conceptualizationis most
useful, since the ideological system of Islim, as analyzedby European
and Muslim scholars alike, representeda substantialbreak with "pre-
Islamic" beliefs 2)
However this dichotomy has also been mistakenly applied to as-
sumptions on the fundamental structure of Arab social, economic,
and political institutions3). Several authors have erroneously asserted
that a sharp "break"in these fundamentalstructurescorrespondwith
Muhammad's acquisition of temporal authority. For example one
Orientalhistorian,in an otherwiseexcellentand pioneeringwork on the
seventh century,assertsthat Arabia was undergoing a transition from
a matrilineal to a patrilineal kinship system during Muhammad's
lifetime 4). This view is based on an outmoded evolutionaryhypothesis
of social organization, justifiedneither by anthropologicaltheory nor
evidence from Arabia, not taken seriously since its refutation shortly
after Robertson Smith (following McLennan) first proposed it in
KinshipandMarriagein Early Arabia (I885) 6).
It is beyond the scope of this paper systematicallyto analyzein their
entirety the social and cultural transformations which occurred in

I) In E12, esp. pp. 962-964.

E.g. T. Izutsu, God and Man in the Koran(Tokyo, 1964), pp. 198-229; Ignaz
2)
Goldziher, Mubammedanische Studien,pp. 219-228.
3) J. Chelhod, Les Structures du Sacrl les Arabes(Paris, 1964), P. I?4.
chez
4) Watt, Medina,p. 388.
5) See Robert F. Spencer, "The Arabian Matriarchate:an Old Controversy",
SouthwesternJournalof Anthropology,VIII (I952), 478-502, and J. Henninger, "La
Soci&t6Btdouine Ancienne", in F. Gabrieli (ed.), L'Antica SociethBeduina(Rome,
1959), PP. 90-92. For similar difficultiesof this nature see R. B. Serjeant'sreview of
Medina in BSOAS, XXI (1958), I87-I88.
 MUSAYLIMA 23

seventh centuryArabia,but it is useful to indicate certainkey concepts

which have been introduced or modified by recent studies and in-
vestigations.
Among the most significant studies are Serjeant's analysis of the
Sira and the "Constitution of Medina" documents1), Watt's analysis
of tribal relations during the Ridda, which he uses to clarify Muham-
mad's tribal policies previousto the Ridda2), and Joseph Chelhod on
political organization and religious institutions3). The conclusion of
each of these works (in their respectivesubject-areas)is that the funda-
mentalpoliticaland social structureof Arabiashows no sudden"break"
with the pre-Hidjra past, at least through the period of the Ridda.
Thus Watt was able to explain Muhammad'stribalpolicies by formula-
ting certain patterns of tribal custom as practiced during the Ridda;
Serjeanthow the "Constitutionof Medina"conformed to pre-existing
standards of tribal diplomacy. Therefore what is known of tribal
custom outside of the period of the Ridda can be used to weigh the
significanceof the data on Musaylima,most of which covers the years
630 to 634.
There is a misconception in some of the sparse anthropological
literature on seventh century Arabia which, if corrected, will render
the materialon al-Yamimain the following section more intelligible: it
is that the sedentarizationof nomads and the spread of trade in the
Hidjiz from the fifth century onwards was an unusual event in an
overwhelminglynomadic land and had as its immediate,unique conse-
quence the foundation of Mecca (ca. 400), and eventually, to complete
the "evolutionary" sequence-the formation of a "rudimentarystate
organization" 4).

I) "Professor A. Guillaume's Translation of the Sirah", BSOAS, XXI (i95 8),

I-I3; R. B. Serjeant, "Haram and IHawtah,the Sacred Enclave in Arabia", in Ml-
langes Taha Husayn (ed. A. Badawi) (Cairo, 1962), pp. 41-57; "The Constitution of
Medina", Islamic Quarterly, VIII (1964), 3-16.
2) Medina, pp. 78-150o.
3) Esp. Introduction.
4) E.g. Eric Wolf, "The Social Organizationof Mecca and the Origins of Islam",
Sw.J. Anthro.,VII (i9S ), 329-330.
24 DALE F. EICKELMAN

However, an examination of the history of pre-Islhmic Arabia,

based on inscriptions, early accounts by non-Arab travellers, and the
traditionalMuslim sources, indicatesthat the process of sedentarization
was not confined to the period immediately preceding the rise of
Islam 1), nor was the process of state-formationfrom both nomadic
and sedentarytribal groups 2). Urban centers of predominantlyArab
settlers were numerousand well-established.The tone of the following
quotation from Sidney Smith in BSOAS (1954) suggests that he felt
his Orientalist colleagues, as well as members of other disciplines,
occasionallyneglected these facts.
Social conditions in Arabia demand a new treatment. The land was not,
before the appearanceof the Prophet, a closed box, in which there were a few
Jews and Christians,isolated from the great states. Lopsided views have been
induced from quaintstories of thejahiliyah["ignorance",i.e. pre-Islamic Arabia],
and the abiding predilection [of scholars on the period] for nomad ways...
There were thriving cities in Arabia, old foundations, as civilized as any in
Syria or 'Iraq... The Christianand Jewish communities were large, and not
mainly foreigners. Arabs had faced the formidableAbyssinians. Militaryleaders
had fought men trainedin Persian armies on equal terms 3).
Thus, while the events leading to the hegemony of Meccaare clouded
with uncertainty, the sudden rise of Kuraysh there to wealth and
importancein a settled environment was not a singularevent in "pre-
Islimic" history. Ratherit was part of a continuing pattern of the rise
and fall of urban centers, fluctuating with the vicissitudes of interna-
tional trade and politics 4).
Mecca, in this perspective,was one of a numberof settlementswhich
at various times managed to transcendthe narrow confines of a kin-
based society and form a city-state6). Thus the premise that the rise
of Islam was "causallyconnectedwith the spreadof trade",as suggested
by one anthropologist6), becomes untenable when the sources for
I) E.g. D. Schlumberger, La du Nord-Ouest (Paris, 1951), pp. 131xft.
E.g. G. Levi Della Vida,Palmyrine
2) "Pre-Islamic Arabia", in The Arab Heritage, ed.
N. A. Faris (Princeton, 1964), pp. 35-37, 39; G. Olinder, TheKingsof Kinda(Lund,
1927).
3) "Events in Arabia in the 6th CenturyA.D.", XVI, 466-467.
4) Smith, 467.
5) Chelhod, Introduction,
pp. 65-9~
6) Wolf, 329.
 MUSAYLIMA 25

pre-Islamichistoryare fully utilized.The tradefactoralone accounts

for nothing except an economicbase for urbanlife not unique to
Mecca,even in the Hi~iaiz1). In other centerstradeas an economic
base was frequentlysubstitutedor supplementedby the cultivation
of date palms or cereals, such as at Medinaand at-Ti'if 2).
Whatthen, were some of the otherfactorsby whicha city acquired
hegemonyover its hinterland,or over othercities?Recentstudiesby
R. B. Serjeantsuggestthat the most typicalpatternin centralArabia
by whicha city wouldacquireascendancyover neighboringtribesand
regionswasto form(or be selectedfor) a .haram,whichcouldconstitute
"a nucleus about which may be gatheredan indefinitenumberof
tribes"3). Severaltribes (or sections of one tribe) would agree to
recognizea given town or region as a sanctuaryin which no blood
could be shed, to meet there to discuss blood disputesand other
seriousinter-tribalmatters,to allow eachotherto conducttradethere
in peace,and to arrangefor the safe transitof caravansthroughtheir
respectiveterritories.To violate the rules of a haramwas to risk
supernatural sanctionsand reprisalsby the othercontractingtribes.
In seventh centurycentralArabiaseveralharamsare known by
name: at-Ti'if 4), al-Yamama 5), and Mecca 6). Mecca and Medina were
recognized as harams by Muhammadafter 622, and at-Ti'if and al-
Yamima continued until suppressed by the Islimic conquests. Pre-
Islamic inscriptions indicate numerous such sanctuariesof a similar
patternin South Arabia7). Bin Hid has been regardedas a haramsince
at least the sixth century,althoughin contemporarySouth Arabian
usage it is referred to as a 8).
.haw.ta
I) Chelhod, Introduction,
pp. 95-96; Smith, 467.
2) Watt, MohammadatMecca(Oxford, I960o),pp. I38, 142. 3) Milanges, p. 50o.
4) Chelhod, Introduction,p. 79; Milanges,p. 48.
5) The exact site in al-Yamima is unspecified, but was probably al-Hadir itself.
Tab., pp. I932-1933.
6) See the numerous references to Arabic sources in Serjeant, M6langes;also
Chelhod, Sacr6,pp. 232-236.
7) Serjeant,Milanges,esp. p. 52z; G. Ryckmans,Les ReligionsArabes
(Louvain, 1951), pp. 36-37. Preislamiques
8) Serjeant,Milanges;see also his "Hiid and Other Pre-IslamicProphets of Hadra-
mawt", Le Musion,LXVII (i954), 121-178.
26 DALE F. EICKELMAN

The haramis a clearexampleof a fundamentalsocial institution with

its origins in pre-Islamictimes which carriedover, virtuallyunchanged,
into Arab society in some regions until at least 633 1). There is evidence,
analyzedlater, that Musaylimaset up such a lharam.R. B. Serjeant,in
the passage below, related the "Constitution of Medina" documents
to the institution of the haram. While his interpretation of specific
clauses and technical terms is not of direct relation to the present
inquiry, his general conclusions support our position that no sudden
break in fundamental social conventions occurred in the 620zo'sand
630's.
The progress revealed by this remarkableseries of agreementspreserved by
Ibn Hishim, is from a confederationpresidedover by a member of a holy house
[such as IKuraysh]to regulate procedure-and this is what I understandwhen
the agreementsstipulatethat any point upon which the Medinan tribes disagree
to is to be referredto Mulhammadwho knows what the law is-to the founding
of a haram within which God, for practicalpurposes Muhammad,is virtually
absolute, surroundedby tribes self-governing but linked to the haram2).
After analyzingthe "Constitution"clauseby clause,Serjeantcon-
cludes:
Muslim sourcespresenta picture of Islamiclaw as sanctionedby Muhammad's
practice at Medina, but one has only to read the Straband the series of 8 docu-
ments of the so-called "Constitution of Medina" to perceive that the already
established system of law and custom was Muhammad'spractice... It might
be said that Muhammadfitted into the custom into which he was born 3).
Politicaland social conditionsin the regions surroundingcentral
Arabiaplayedanimportantpartin the internaldevelopmentsof central
Arabia.Until the end of the sixth centurythe Arabianpeninsulawas
surroundedby three formidablepowers, the Byzantine,Persian,and
Abyssinian,none of whichwas willingto permitthe formationof any
majorrival commercialor politicalpower in Arabia.To these three
shouldbe addedthe variousstatesof SouthernArabia,at least during
the periodswhen free of Persianand Abyssiniancontrol4). Werean
Arab movementto have arisenbeforethe seventhcentury,unifying
i) Chelhod, Sacr6,pp. 232-233.
2) Milanges, p. 50.
3) Ibid, p. 51.
of Islam (Alexandria,1947), pp. Io8 ff.
4) H. St. J. B. Philby, TheBackground
 MUSAYLIMA 27

nomads and settlers in common economic, political, and religious

interests antitheticalto those of the established powers, it could not
have sustained itself or expanded without meeting stiff opposition, as
is witnessed by the Abyssinianforce sent against Meccain 569/70, soon
after Mecca had assumed major commercial importance. "Client"
states on the Arabianpeninsula of predominantlysedentaryand semi-
sedentary Arabs 1) were maintained by the major powers to keep the
Arabs of the Interior in check 2) and to prevent the Arabs on the fringes
of their empire from forming or joining an Arab state independent of
their respective spheres of influence. The best-known of these buffer
states were, in the north, the Byzantine Ghassinid state 3) and the
Persian Lakhmiddynastyat al-JHlira
4); and in the south the short-lived

IHimyariteKinda kingdom of central Arabia5).

However, by the third quarter of the sixth century the economic
and politicalsystemof the majorempireshad begun to collapse."In
Persiathis took the formof a disputedsuccession,as often beforeand
since" 6). After the last Arab king died at al-HiIrain 604, direct govern-
ment by the Persiansproducedthe rebellionswhich culminatedin
634-635.In particular,
the chainof eventsin Persiaafterthe deathof the
SasSinidruler KhusrawII (29 February628) renderedineffective
Persianattemptsto control the tribeson their fringes,includingal-
Yamima 7). By the abdication of Justinian II in 578 the Byzantine
empire was politically and economically exhausted; Abyssinian power
had likewise waned. In South Arabia the breaking of the dam at
Ma'rib (540) was a dramatic sign of decay in a state comparatively
prosperousfor over a thousand yearss). As is well-known, the Islamic

I) Levi Della Vida, p. 42; H. Charles,Le Christianisme

desArabesNomades(Paris,
1936), P. 4.
2) Wolf, 342.
3) I. Khilidi, "The Arab Kingdom of Ghassin", MW, XLVI (1956), 193-206.
4) Smith, 465, 467.
5) Olinder, p. 37.
6) Smith, 467.
7) Barthold, 498.
8) Smith, 467-468; W. Caskel, "The Bedouinization of Arabia", in Studiesin
IslamicCulturalHistory,ed. G. Von Grunebaum(Menosha, 1954), P. 40.
28 DALE F. EICKELMAN

movement was eventually to benefit from the ensuing power vacuum,

but not before facing rivalry (or resistance) from other Arab move-
ments such as that led by Musaylima.

Al-Yamdma beforeMusaylima
Musaylima b. Habib al-Kadhdhib, "the Liar", as he is known by the
traditionalaccounts1), was a member of the B. Hanifa, a tribe which
like the IKuraysh,had some experience with settled life and non-kin
society before the emergence of their prophet. The B. Hanifa, in turn,
were part of the largertribal group of B. Bakrb. Wi'il (laterknown as
Rabi'a, after their eponymal ancestor), which had originally migrated
from South Arabia and by 5o3 had become the leading tribe of the
centralArabianKinda empire, indicatingan early transformationfrom
relatively unorganized nomadic life to participationin an extra-tribal
form of social organization. B. Bakr lived in al-Yamima, adopting
as their "capital".Al-Hadjrwas
al-Hadjr(nearpresent-dayar-Riy~4id)
originallyin the hands of the B. Hanifa,although other tribal groups of
the B. Bakr joined them later 2).
Informationas to the landsurrounding is especiallyimpor-
al-H.adr
tant in determiningwhether Musaylima'sfollowers were primarily
nomads or settlers 3).
The region surroundingal-Hadjrwas an agriculturalone where
wheat was grown, as al-Hamdini, and Philby concur4).
Y.kfit, Y.kiit
even mentions a ninth century Arab who constructed an irrigation
canal in the region 5). itself was at the confluence of the
Al-.Hadjr
I) Musaylima'sgenealogy is variously given. See SEI, p. 416.
2) E12, 962-964.
3) Such a division is quite significantin discussing culturalinstitutions and social
organization. R. Blachlre, Histoire de la Littirature Arabe (Paris, 1964), Vol. II,
pp. 243-247, recognized this in his division of Arab poets by region, and in each
region by nomadic and sedentarygroupings. See Chelhod, Sacri,pp. 3-33; H. Rosen-
feld, "The Social Composition of the Military in the Process of State Formation in
the ArabianDesert",JRAI, XCV (1965), 183; A. Musil, NorthernNe]d (New York,
I928), p. 257.
4) Barthold, 486. For recent evidence drawn roughly from the same region, see
F. S. Vidal, TheOasisof al-Hasa (New York, I9 5).
5) Barthold, 486.
 MUSAYLIMA 29

fertile sections of Arabia with the inland desert, so situated that there
must have been frequent interaction between the nomadic and agri-
culturalelements of the B. Hanifa and other tribes1).
The evidence availablefor the seventh century, detailed below, also
indicates the strength of sedentaryelements in al-Yamima 2).
Date palms were cultivated on all oases of al-Yamima, and grain was
grown in the 'Ird valley and in al-Khardj as well. In good years,
according to Caskell, grain was sent to Mecca, but in bad years was not
sufficient even for local consumption 3). Further evidence is provided
by Muhammad'srelations with Thum~ma b. Uthdl, leader of a sub-
section of the B. Hanifa, who was capturedby a Muslim raiding party
and later won to Islam by kind treatmentfrom the Prophet. To support
Muhammad'scampaignsagainst the Meccans (before 628), he told the
Meccans, whom he had been providing with grain, that "Never, no,
never, by God, will you ever again received a grain of wheat from
al-Yamima without the Prophet authorizing it!" 4). Barthold states
thatMuhammad,upon hearingthat the Meccanswere starving,allowed
the grain shipments to be resumed5). Thum~ma remained faithful
to Islaimuntil his death, and played a significantpart in several later
campaigns, including the one against Musaylima and another in al-
Bahrayn, where he died in combat 6).
It is most likely that the division of leadershipbetween Thumima
and Musaylima corresponded with the nomadic-sedentarydivision
of the tribe 7). On the basis of the story of Thumama's prohibitingthe
exportation of wheat to Mecca, Barthold infers that Thumima was
ruler of the western region of al-Yamima, much less hospitable to
agriculturethan the region surrounding Unlike the
al-.Had~jr.
region, western al-Yamima was suitable to desert nomadism, al-.Had4jr
and

I) Barthold, 488; Tab., p. 1939.

2) Watt, Medina, p. 133; Barthold, 489.
3) E12, p. 963.
4) Les TraditionsIslamiques,tr. O. Houdas (Paris, 1908), Vol. III, p. 214.
Buldari,
5) 492.
6) Barthold, 492-493.
7) Watt, Medina, p. 133.
30 DALE F. EICKELMAN

would be the most likely place to cut off trade between Mecca and
al-Hadj~r1).
The evidence that Thumima controlled the nomadic element of
B. Hanifais only inferential,as can be seen.However,it is certainthat
Thumima did not control more than a small faction of the B.
whetherthey were nomadicor settled.Thumimahad to wait.Hanifa,
for the
mainbody of MuslimsunderKhilid beforeenteringinto conflictwith
Musaylima in the decisive battle of 634 2).
B. Hanifa, although there were a few nomads among them, were
regarded primarily as a settled group. Barthold mentions that when
Ziy d b. Abi, Muslim governor of named as his deputy in Khu-
risan a member of the B. Hanifa, the 'Ir.k,
poet Ibn Anis (of the nomadic
B. Tamim, rivals of B. Hanifa?) wrote derogatory verses calling the
B. Hanifaslaves and tillers of land, employingall the scorn for sedentary
life that a nomadic poet was capableof mustering3).
Many of Musaylima's extant revelations are directed exclusively to
a settled audience, and none are directed specifically to nomads. The
following revelation, recorded in Tabari, would obviously have no
appeal to nomads, as Musaylima swears by various agricultural occu-
pations, exhorts his listeners to defend themselves against nomads,
and establishes the merit of non-nomadic life:
I swear by the sowers and reapers of the harvest, and the winnowers and
millers of wheat, and the bakers of bread... You are better than the nomads
(ahl al-wabar)and no worse than towndwellers (ahl al-madar). Defend your
fields, shelter the poor, and drive off the attackers4).
To rid himself of the "false prophetess" Sajaihand her B. Tamim
followers who were drivento al-Yamimaby their B. Tamimopposition,
Musaylimaofferedthem half the harvest of al-Yamima, with a promise
of half the coming year as well, according to a tradition from Sayf
b. 'Umir 6). The ability to make such an offer depended, of course,

I) 492.
2) Barthold, 503; Tab., p. 1962.
3) 489.
4) P. 1934.
5) Tab., pp. 1919-1920.
 MUSAYLIMA 31I

upon Musaylima's having the settled elements of B. IHanifaunder

his control.
Also relevant are a number of miraclesrecorded by Tabari which,
when performedby Muhammad,meet with success; while in imitating
them, Musaylima invariably meets with disaster: wells dry up, date
palms wither at his touch, and vegetation dies in the fields 1). The
miracles, as well as the diametricallyopposed results, are evidently
fabulous, but what sustains our interest is that most of the miracles
recorded for Musaylima (and the parallel ones for Muhammad)deal
with situations relevant to settled, or possibly semi-nomadic,peoples.
Of course the "miracle"stories must be regardedas highly questionable
evidence. However they support our position, establishedby the more
substantialevidence cited above, that it was among a settled popula-
tion and in a settled region that Musaylimafound his followers.
Al-Hadjr was prominent as a regional trading center, although
no information is available as to how it compared in importance with
Mecca. Three caravan routes converged there: one from Mecca and
Medina, another from Persia in the north (which served as one of the
major routes of Muslim expansion in the caliphate of Abf Bakr), and
one from 'Umin and the Yemen in the south 2).
Given its, geographical position and economic importance, al-
Yamima was well-connectedwith the state organizationson the fringes
of Arabia, and influenced by their cultures. The ChristianLakhmid
empire(ruleddirectlyby the Persiansfrom 604 on) was to the immediate
north and even incorporated al-Yamima into its domains for much
of the sixth century 3); Christian monks and perhaps monasteries were
known in al-Yamima 4). Hawdha b. 'All (d. 63o), Musaylima's imme-
diate predecessor and leader of the B. Hanifa, was a Christian, as well
i) Pp. 1934-1935. On p. I935 there is a curious rationalizationof why Musaylima
still had supportersafter such disasterous"miracles":"[Theirilleffects]became clear
only after [Musaylima's]death". B. Hanifa must have been extremely unperceptive
cultivators not to have noticed the disappearanceof their water and the withering of
their crops, which, by the same account, happened simultaneously!
2) Barthold, 488.
3) Smith, 442.
4) Lyall, 777.
32 DALE F. EICKELMAN

as al-'AshB (d. 625), a poet from al-Yamama. Al-'Ash~i relates that

Hawdha, after capturing a large number of prisoners in a long-standing
conflict with the B. Tamim, hoped to get God's grace by releasing
them on Easter1). The northernsections of B. Bakr living near
were definitely Christians, and there is evidence that at leastal-.Hira
some
sections of the B. were practising some form of Christianity
.Hanifa
as well 2). Lyall strains his evidence by asserting that the entire B.
Hanifa were Christians3), but for our purposes it is sufficientto recog-
nize (as did Watt for Mecca)that Christianinfluenceswere "in the air"
and familiarto the settled population of al-Yamima4).
There is some direct evidence of political contacts between al-Ya-
m~imaand non-Arab powers in the period immediately preceding
Musaylima's ascendancyto power. Hawdha, who was "possibly the
strongest man in centralArabiaat this time", was allied to the Persians
and "responsible for the safety of their caravanson a certain section
of the route from Yemen to Persia" 5). For his cooperation with (or
submission to) the Persians, Hawdha received an honorary uniform
and wreath, and was known from the time he received the gifts as
"the wreath-bearer". In addition to the above evidence of Persian
political influence in al-Yamima, several Hanifi occupied major posts
in the Persian bureaucracy 6).
Al-Yamima was also influenced by developments in the Hidjiz.
Recognizing Hawdha'simportance,Muhammadsent him a letter shortly
before his armisticewith the IKurayshat Hudabiyain June 628, inviting
him to acceptIslam.Hawdharepliedthat he would,on conditionthat
Barthold, 490; EL2, p. 964.
I)
E12, p. 964.
z)
784.
3)
Watt, Medina,pp. 158-I61.
4)
Ibid., p. I33; also Barthold, 491; EI2, p. 964. On the basis of Hawdha's
5)
responsibility for the safety of Persian caravans,Watt (Medina,p. 133) infers that he
was a member of the nomadic section of B. Hanifa. Does this necessarily follow?
Kuraysh was a settled tribe which could arrangefor and guaranteethe safe passage
of caravans.There are also ethnographicinstances of settled groups achieving hege-
mony over nomadic groups. See Serjeant, "Hid", I35, and "Two Tribal Cases
(Documents) (Wihidi Sultanate, South-West Arabia)",JRAS, i9 i, i68.
6) Barthold, 49I.
 MUSAYLIMA 33

Muhammad would name him co-ruler and heir, a proposal which

Muhammadrejected,not willing in any way to compromise his claim
to supremereligious and political authority1).
The discussions of most Orientalistsregarding Musaylima'smove-
ment have centered around the question of its origin in relation to
Islam.
Essentially three positions have been taken: (I) Some historians
have argued that Musaylima was preaching before Muhammad and
was relatively well-known. The only buttress for this position is Sfira
XXV: 6o and the responding taunt of the Meccans that Muhammad
received his revelationsfrom a man in al-Yamima called "ar-Rahmin":
But when they are told, "Bow yourselves to ar-Rahm~n,"they say, "And
what is ar-Rahmimn? Shall we bow ourselves to what thou biddest us?" And it
increasesthem in aversion (Sara XXV: 60).
[The Meccans retorted to Muhammadthat] the only Rahm~n of whom we
know is the Rahmanof al-Yamimah; i.e. Musaylimahthe Liar (al-Baghawi)2).
The only Orientalist completely to adopt this position was D. S.
Margoliouth. Perhaps not paying enough attention to historical
method, he took an extreme (and arbitrary)interpretationof Siira
XXV: 6o and al-Baghwi's commentary on it, and maintained that
Muhammadmodelled his early Sftirasupon Musaylima's.Margoliouth
based his argumenton the non-sequitur that "in any question of literary
ownership there must be a presumption against Mohammed, for in
cases where we know his sourceshe indignantlydenies the use of them",
and hence "there is a suspicion that he is the imitator ratherthan the
imitated". After Muhammadborrowed from Musaylimafor his early
verses, Margoliouth argues that "he found it expedient to desert
Musaylimahfor the Old and New Testaments and the sayings of the
Jewish fathers" 3).
The second alternative is to accept uncritically the reverse
(2)
assumption, favored by the Islamic source material, that Musaylima

I) Caetani, p. 640; al-Balidhuri, The Originsof the IslamicState, tr. P. K. Hitti

(New York, 1916), p. 33.
2) Margoliouth, 485.
3) Ibid., 492.
JESHO, X 3
34 DALE F. EICKELMAN

was merely an imitatorof Muhammad1). A highly improbableexplana-

tion of how Musaylimalearned of Mulhammadis found in Ibn
Ish.ik:
A shaykhof B. Hanifa from the people of al-Yamima told me that the incident
happened otherwise [immediatelyabove this account is a story that Musaylima,
hiding in "garments", came within earshot of the Prophet, who sensed his
presence]. He alleged [note the use of this term] that the deputation came to
the apostle having left Musaylimahbehind with the camels and the baggage.
When they had accepted Islam they remembered where he was, and told the
apostle that they had left a companion of theirs to guard their stuff. The apostle
ordered that he should be given the same as the rest, saying, "His position is
no worse than yours", i.e. in minding the property of his companions. That is
what the apostle meant.
They had left the apostle and brought him what he had given him. When they
reachedal-Yamima the enemy of God apostasized,gave himself out as a prophet,
and played the liar. He said, "I am a partner with him in the affair,"and then
he said to the deputation that had been with him, "Did he not say unto you
when you mentioned me to him 'His position is no worse than yours'? What
can that mean but that he knows that I am a partner with him in the affair?"
Then he began to utter rhymes in saj' and speak in imitation of the style of the
Quran: "God has been gracious to the pregnant woman; he has brought forth
from her a living being that can move from her very midst." He permittedthem
to wine and fornicate, and let them dispense with prayer, yet he was acknow-
ledging the apostle as a prophet, and Hanifa agreed with him on that. But God
knows what the truth was 2)
The first count against the story is the severalinternalcontradictions
within it. The clumsy and naive invention of having Musaylimahide
with the baggage is hardly orthodox etiquette for the leader of a large
Arab tribe, or one about to be drafted for leadership3). The account
that Musaylimapermittedwine and fornicationto his people is contra-
dicted by all other accounts (mentionedin the next section). Secondly,
as A. Guillaumenotes in the introduction to his translationof the Sira,
Ibn Ishik prefaced this episode with "he alleged", which leads us to
assume that Ibn placed less credence in this account than those
Ishi.k
accounts which are not qualifiedby those words. Finally, the B. Hanifa
delegation story is one of a number of delegation accounts, as Watt

I) E.g. Tab., pp. 1749-1750. G. H. Bousquet, "Observations sociologiques sur

les origines de l'Islam", SI, II (I954), 71, also took this position; "L'apparition
ultdrieurede faux prophetes est un cas d'imitation (cf. les fausses Jeanne d'Arc)".
2) TheLife of Mlubammed, tr. A. Guillaume (London, 195 3), PP. 636-637.
3) Caetani,p. 452.
 MUSAYLIMA 3J

notes, which were invented to increase the prestige of Muhammadat

the expense of Abtx Bakr1). If a delegation did occur, it probably
involved a discussion of primarily political matters, almost certainly
not the submission of the entire tribe to Islam 2).
A much more likely account supporting this alternative is that
Musaylimalearned of Muhammad'sverses and techniques through the
medium of a certain Nahir ar-Rahh•il("the traveller", alternatively
given as ar-Radjdj~il)b. 'Unfuwa, who was either a member of the
alleged B. Hanifa delegation to Muhammad who later apostasized 3),
or a Kur'~inic teacher (mu'allim) sent by Muhammad to the B. Hanifa
who did the same. In the latter case he pressed Musaylima's claim by
saying that Musaylima was an "associate" in prophecy with Muhammad
(innahu dad ushrik ma'ahu) 4). In either case he is said to have joined
forces with Musaylima,instructedhim in the imitation of Muhammad,
and acted as his close adviser 5).
(3) Our own position is to deny that there is sufficientinformation
to fix the origin of Musaylima'smovement. We can conclude, however,
that Musaylimawas some sort of religious figure in al-Yamima who
did not attract substantialpublic attention or support until Hawdha's
death 6). The contention that Musaylima was merely an imitator of
Muhammad leaves many questions unanswered. Musaylima may well
have borrowed or copied from Muhammad, very possibly through the
medium of an-Nah~ir. But the reasons for Musaylima's success in
converting the majorityof his tribe and fighting with an armyof 40,000
are still unexplained. Why would the B. Hanifa have been so willing
to accept an imitator of Muhammad, the prophet of More
.Kuraysh?
pertinently, what needs did a prophet such as Musaylimafill among
the B. Hanifa, so that they were willing to fight until death with him?

I) See Watt, Medina, pp. 79-80.

2) Caetani, p. 643.
3) Bal1dhuri, p. 132; Watt, Medina, p. I34; Tab., p. 1932.
4) Tab., pp. 1932, 194x; ad-Diyirbakri, Ta'rik al-Khamis (Cairo, [A. H.] 1302),
p. I775; Balidhuri, p. 133.
5) Watt, Medina,p. I36; Tab., p. I932; Barthold, 499.
6) This position is substantiallythat of Watt in Medina,p. 136.
36 DALE F. EICKELMAN

Traditional scholarship on Musaylima,most of it on the "origin"

question, has concentratedon the historical "diffusion" of ideas and
techniques,and who "imitated"whom. These questions are interesting
in their own right, although they cannot be answeredwith the materials
presentlyat our disposal. Our presentanalysishas a somewhat different
focus. The following two sections will try to indicate which cultural
mechanismsMusaylimahad to utilize to gain supportersfor his claimsof
religious and political authority, and how he could then maintain
such support.

Musaylima-TheFoundations of Authority
From what is known of the culturalacceptanceof claims to religious
authority and supernatural communication in general, their initial
acceptancedepends not upon innovations in the form and content of
the claim, but rather upon those elements in it which are already
familiar1). This is the case even if the overall intent of the claim is to
endow old symbols and acts with new meaning 2), and perhaps (as was
the case with the movement begun by to offer society ma-
Mu.hammad)
terial and ideological benefits from identificationwith some definable
new cultural system, or Weltanschauung
3).
The starting-pointin an analysisof the basis of Musaylima'sauthority
is the style of his revelations. Unlike his ordinaryspeech, which is in
prose, Musaylima'srevelations take the form of oaths using unusual
words or images, or sadj' verse, "short sentences in rhythmic prose,
with single or more rarely alternatingrhyme"4). This style was used
prior to the seventh century (and afterwards as well) by the kdbins, or
soothsayers 5), and, at least to some extent, by poets (sing. shd'ir).

I) E.g. T. Schwartz, ThePaliauMovement in theAdmiraltyIslands,1946-1954(New

York, 1962), pp. 392-393; see also Watt, Mecca,p. 8i.
2) V. Lanternari,TheReligionsof the Oppressed (Toronto, 1965), P. 185.
3) Wallace, 273.
4) SEI, p. 2o7.
is often mistakenly considered an exclusively "pre-Isl~mic"
5) "K3ihinship"
institution. The use of sadj'verse by kshins as a sign of supernaturalcommunication
has been fairly constant over the centuries. Al-Mas'idi, Muridj, ed. de Meynardand
de Courteille (Paris, 1865), Vol. III, pp. 379 ff., mentions the South Arabian kihina
 MUSAYLIMA 37

Another use of the cryptic "kihinesque"form of speech occurs in some

of the early IKur'~inicverses, as analyzed by Richard Bell 1).
Below are several examples of Musaylima's revelations, or of parts
of them. I have transliterated the Arabic of the first to give a clearer
idea of their sound.
Croak,frog, as thou wilt: part of thee in the water and part in the mud; thou
hinderst not the drinker, nor dost thou befoul the stream2).
Yad1ifdi',ibnatdifdi',
Nuk~bimd tanukkin,
A'ldkfi i-ma',
Wa 'asfalkfl t-tin,
Ld sh-shdribtamna'in,
IWaId I-mad'tukaddirin 3).
The elephant,what is the elephant,and who shall tell you what is the elephant?
It has a poor tail, and a long trunk; and is a trifling part of the creations of thy
God.
Verily we have given thee the jewels: so take them to thyself and hasten;
yet beware lest thou be too greedy or desire too much.
By the land covered with grass, by the mountains covered with whiteness,
by the horses bearing saddles...
By various types of sheep..,. by the black sheep and its white milk, indeed
it is a pure surprise, and the wine was forbidden-Why don't you wonder
about these things? 4)
Unfortunately the context in which the above verses occurred is
not known, although the verses cited elsewhere do occur in context.
With the contextless verses, form alone can be discussed. Anyone
wishing to establisha claim to supernaturalcommunicationin seventh
Tab., III, 2 gives an example of a kshin using sadj' as late as 749, well after
the Islamizition of Arabia; A. Musil, The MannersandCustomsof the RwalaBedouins
.arifa;
(New York, I928), p. 403, gives a contemporary example. See also R. Montagne,
La Civilisationdu Desert (Paris, 1947), P. 85.
i) Introduction to theQur'dn(Edinburgh, 1963), p. 76.
2) This and the following two verses are translatedby Margoliouth, 488.
3) Tab., p. I3934.
4) Ibid., p. 1933.
Palgrave is not considered to be the most reliable of i9th century travellers, but
he writes the following on Musaylimain Narrativeof a Year'sJourneythroughCentral
and EasternArabia (London, 1866), Vol. I, p. 382: "I have, while in Nejed, been
favoured with the recitation of many of [Musaylima's]ludicrous pieces, yet retained
by tradition; but, like most parodies, they were little worthy of memory, and often
very coarse". If the account has any validity, it is regrettablethat Palgrave neither
recorded the alleged sayings nor the tribal affiliationsof their reciters.
38 DALE F. EICKELMAN

century Arabia was obligated, at least at the beginning of his career,

to exhibit the traditionallyrecognizedform of communicationwith the
supernatural.All speech whose origin was attributedto unseen powers,
or had something to do with the unseen powers, "such as cursing,
blessing, divination, incantation,inspiration,and revelation, had to be
couched in [sadj']" 1).
In some details, such as the use of sadj' verse, Musaylimaused the
same conventions as the kihin. In the next section I will deal with
Musaylima's implementation of authority, but at this juncture it is
significantto note that the concept of kihin, on the basis of his super-
natural power, often had considerable political influence, as well as
religious, which frequentlyextendedbeyond the limits of his own tribe.
Thus the idea of a religious personage assuming control of one or
several tribes was not unknown in the two centuriesprior to Islam:
Their [kshins] mantic knowledge is based on ecstatic inspiration... [which]
is of demonical origin: a djinnior shaitdn"demon"... The kihins often express
themselves in very obscure and ambiguois language. They give greateremphasis
to their utteranceby striking oaths, swearing by the earth and sky, sun, moon
and stars, light and darkness, evening and morning, plants and animals of all
kinds...
Kihins play an extremely important part in public as well as private life.
They are interrogated on all important tribal and state occasions ... In private
life the kihins especially act as judges in disputes and points of law of all kinds
... Theirdecisionis considered as a kind of divinejudgementagainstwhichthereis no
appeal... The influence of these men and women was naturallygreat and often
stretchedfar beyondthe boundsof theirtribes2).
An example of a seventh century kihin who was also chief of his
tribe was Tulayha b. Khuwaylid of B. Asad. His dual role (at least
before the Ridda) of chief and kihin was emphasized by al-Dihiz,
among others 3). Tulayha is an especially pertinent example since
during the Ridda he further assumed the role of "prophet" of a tribal
confederation under his aegis, at least until his conversion to Islim 4).
I) Izutsu, p. I73.
Italics mine, D.E.; SEI, p. 207; see also G. Ryckmans,pp. I1-iz; Blachare,His-
2)
toire,pp. 188-195.
3) In Blachare, Histoire, p. 191; also H. Lammens, L'Arabie Occidentale (Beirut,
I928), p. 257.
4) SEI, pp. 595-596.
 MUSAYLIMA 39

Muhammad'suse of the traditionalforms of communication with

the supernaturalat the beginning of his careerhas been studied in consi-
derable detail. He invested these forms with a new significancefrom
the outset, but what we wish to establish is that only by use of the
recognized signs of supernaturalcommunication could Muhammad
initially establish his claim to inspiration1).
The source of Musaylima's revelations is variously identified as
"ar-Rahman" 2), and simply "he who comes to me from heaven"
(al-ladhiya'ti min is-sama')3). Elsewhere Musaylimaidentifies himself
as a "messenger of God" (rasil illdh)4). Like Muhammadhe did not
claim to receive revelations from any of a number of undistinguished
_d/innor shaytidn,as did the ordinarykihin or soothsayer;instead Musay-
lima claimed to receive his inspiration from a superior supernatural
being. Whether this concept was borrowed from Muhammad or
whetherit was independentlydeveloped by Musaylima(at least to some
extent) is a question upon which there is no reliable evidence. The
implications of the claim to a "superior" supernaturalsource are
numerous. Most importantly, such a claim distinguished Muhammad
and Musaylimafrom the kahins who surroundedthem, making their
claim to authority superior, although in the case of Musaylima (since
he allegedly recognized Muhammad'sprophecy), not unique.
It is difficultto place Musaylima'smovement (aswell as Muhammad's)
and innovations in a neat evolutionary sequence with preceding Arab
political and religious movements and institutions. This is primarily
because of the heavy "acculturative"influences in what is known of
his teachings.As was the case in the Hidiajz,al-Yamima'ssettled centers
had long been influenced by the ideas, institutions, commerce, and
people from outside central Arabia, as previously indicated5). Al-
Dji•hiz presents a particularlyinteresting account of how Musaylima
was directly exposed to Persian and Byzantineculture, parallelingthe
1) SEI, p. 207; also Bell, pp. 75-76.
2)Tab., p. I937.
3) Ibid., p. 1933.
4) Ibid., p. I749.
5) See Bell, pp. 8o-8i ; Izutsu, pp. lo9 ff.
40 DALE F. EICKELMAN

accounts of Muhammad's journies to the Ghassinid state in his pre-

prophetic days ). Before Musaylima's "pretensions" to prophecy,
writes, he travelled to the market towns situated between
al-Dj~.hiz
the Arab lands (ddr al-'arab) and Persia (al-'ad/am), learning sorcery,
astrology, and tricks of magic, and "then returned to his tribe, who are
Arabs, and claimed prophecy" 2).
Specific data regarding the religious teachings of Musaylima are
highly limited in the primarysources.Among what is known of Musay-
lima's teachings, he "insisted upon uprightnessof life, and taught the
doctrine of resurrectionand Divine judgment based on what a man
has done during his life", as well as prescribingthree formal prayers
daily, fasting, and the recognition of a sanctuaryor sacred territory
in al-Yamima upon his followers 3). These influences, Watt believes,
were predominantly Christian, as was Musaylima's use of certain
phrases such as "kingdom of heaven" (mulkas-samdi')4). Watt's inference
is highly probable, since al-Yamima was a region highly influencedby
Christianity.Furthermore,the nomadic B. Tamim, who Livedadjacant
to the B. were largely Christian,although converted to Islam
HI.anifa,
in time to join the Muslims in battle against B. Hanifa at the battle of
'AkrabB'. One account in Tabari describing the meeting between
Saiiah of the B. Tamim with Musaylimadescribes her as having been
"firmlyrooted" in Christianity(rdsikha fi n-nasrdniyya)
5).
There is one further, highly questionable, detail of Musaylima's
teachings. Watt refers to Musaylima's"regulation" that "a man was
not to have intercoursewith any woman so long as he had a son alive",
saying that it was "perhapsintended to deal with the economic basis"
of al-Yamima; "the disappearanceof the trade between the Yemen
and Persia had perhaps affected the Yamimah adversely" 6).
If the account in Tabari were accepted as valid, the implications of

I) T. Andre, Mohammed: The Man and His Faith (New York, I960o), pp. 37-38,
40-4I; Blachere, Le Problemede Mahomet (Paris, I95z), p. 35.
2) Cited in ad-Diyirbakri, p. 176.
3) Watt, Medina, p. 3 5, based upon Tab. pp. 1916-19 17.
4) Tab. p. 1917; Medina, p. 136.
~) Tab., p. I9I6? 6) Medina, p. 135; Tab., p. 1917.
 MUSAYLIMA 41

such a "regulation" are much more disastrous than Watt indicates.

Such a prohibition is diametricallyopposed to the Arab ideal of having
as many male offspringas possible, which is recognizedby every writer
on nomadic and sedentaryArabs1). Further,how could such a "regu-
lation" be enforced? A claimant to authority could do nothing but
weaken his claim by advocating measures inherently unenforceable.
If the most creative response of Musaylimato economic difficultiesin
his principalitywas to go against establishedvalues and restrictfamily
size (which in any case could not solve an economic or populationpro-
blem until years later), rather than conquer or subject to tribute rich
regions beyond al-Yamima, then this regulation would support the
contention that Musaylimawas unable to createan ideology capableof
generatingsupportin the culturalsituationof centralArabia.However,
this "regulation"is so obviously againstArab values of both today and
of seventh century Arabia that it is most likely an invention on the
part of the Muslim chroniclers or their informants.

Musaylima-TheImplementation of Religious-Political
Authority
Montgomery Watt has written that is is "clear that Musaylimah's
teaching was attempting to provide a religious and intellectual basis
for a principalitycentredin the Yamamahand independentof Persia,
Byzantium, and Medina" 2).
The practical effect of Musaylima's movement was to establish,
however briefly, an independent principality in al-Yamima. Although
Hawdha acted as protector of Persian caravans, there is no mention
of Musaylima's having done so. As was earlier suggested, the weakened
condition of Persia after the death of Khusraw II (628) probably made
possible the independence of outlying buffer zones such as al-Yamima;
in any case there is no mention of Persian "presence"in al-Yamima
after Hawdha'sdeath. The fierceresistanceof al-Yamimato absorption
into the Pax Islamicais another indication, in political terms, of its
desire for independence.
i) E.g. A. Jaussen, Coutumes
desArabes(Paris, 1948), pp. I4-I5 ; B. Fares, L'Hon-
neur chez les Arabes avant L'sLam (Paris, 193 z2), p. 53. 2) Medina, p. I36.
42 DALE F. EICKELMAN

While the effect of Musaylima'smovement is relatively clear, it is

a difficulttask to determinethe nature of Musaylima'sprincipalityand
his authorityover it. This section gathers the slim evidence of Musay-
lima's negotiations with other tribal groups and his conduct of affairs
within al-Yamima itself. The fragmentary nature of the evidence
necessitatesour dealing separatelywith each incident.
I. In the first episode to be analyzed,Tabarirecordsthat in years of
good harvestthe nomadicB. Asad would raidthe villages of al-Yam~ima
and then withdraw into the sacred area (haram)set up by Musaylima,
using it as a sanctuary.This happenedrepeatedly,even after warnings,
until the people of al-Yamima preparedto pursue the B. Asad into
the sacred area. Musaylimastopped them, saying: "Wait for him who
comes to me from heaven", and then revealed: "By the dark night and
the wily wolf, the B. Asad have not defiled the haram". The people
of al-Yamima replied: "Is the meaning of the haramto make permiss-
ible the forbidden and destroy [our] property?". Later, according to
the same account, the B. Asad again raided al-Yamima, and again
Musaylimapreventedhis followers from entering the sacredarea, with
"the one who comes to him" revealing through him that: "By the
tenebrous night and the dark wolf! The Asad have not cut [down
your] fresh or dried dates" 1).
The above account is significantfor two reasons. First, it shows the
sedentarypeople of B. Hanifa in conflict with a nomadic group. As
demonstratedby Musaylima'srevelation praising the virtues of living
by agriculture, the existence of nomadic-sedentaryconflict, an ever-
present problem in pre-oil Arabia, is confirmed for the specific case
of al-Yamima under Musaylima.Unfortunatelythere is no explanation
in Tabari of why Musaylima should have wanted to protect the B.
Asad and allow his followers to be plundered. Possibly some sort of
pact existed between Musaylima's followers and the B. Asad which is
not recordedin the Muslim chronicles.One of the first steps in securing
al-Yamima as an independent principalitywould have been to reach
a modusvivendi--byforce or by promotion of mutuallybeneficialgoals-
') Tab., pp. 1932-1933.
 MUSAYLIMA 43

with the nomads in and around the principality. Thus fortified, al-
Yamima would be in a condition to maintainindependenceas a reli-
gious and political entity in the face of mounting pressure from the
Hiddjz and other quarters.
The outcome of Musaylima'sencounterwith B. Asad is not known.
For our purposes the importance of the above story from Tabari is
that it shows the existence of nomadic-sedentaryconflict in al-Yamima
and Musaylima'sattempt to deal with it in some manner.
The other significanceof the account is the mention that Musaylima
establisheda haram.As mentionedpreviously,establishmentof a haram
was the means by which one or more tribes could unite under the aegis
of a holy person or family, agree to submit their disputesto arbitration,
and maintain peace in an area recognized as haram1). There is no
evidence in the Muslim accounts which contradicts such a view,
although it is difficultto come to real conclusions on the basis of one
unelaboratedepisode. If Musaylima did establish a haram, it would
be useful to have examplesof disputes submittedto him for arbitration
or judgement. Such information could be used to determinethe scope
of his authority,the innovations (if any) he madeto traditionalconcepts
of authority, and his skill as a leader. In the beginning the "Constitu-
tion of Medina" documents were accepted as a standarditem in the
"cultural vocabulary" of both nomadic and settled Arabs, although
it possessed within it the seeds of something quite revolutionary.Such
may have been the case with Musaylima'sharam.Lackingmore detailed
evidence, our suggestion that Musaylima founded a haram in the
customaryArab patternmust remainhighly provisional2).
II. Another revelation, cited in Tabari, indicates an attempt by
Musaylima to reconcile B. Hanifa with the predominantly nomadic
B. Tamim3), traditionalrivals of the B. IHranifa:"The B. Tamim are
of noble blood; do nothing to discredit them. While we live we shall
I) Chelhod, Sacr6,pp. 229-237; Serjeant,M6langes.
z) In support of this suggestion, it is interesting to note that one of Musaylima's
titles is "Habib",one of the titles of the sharifsin charge of the hawtas,present-day
versions of the lharams,in South Arabia. See Serjeant,Milanges,p. 56.
3) Watt, Medina,p. I37; Charles,pp. 5, 6o ff.
44 DALE F. EICKELMAN

remain their good neighbors and we will defend them from enemies.
When we die, let Rahmin look after them" 1).
This verse suggests that an alliance of some sort may have existed
with B. Tamim. Unfortunately the history of B. Tamim, especially
for the period of the Ridda, is obscure, making it impossible to verify
whether such an alliance existed with all, or merely part, of the tribe,
andthe specifictimesinvolved2).
The majordifficultyfacingan interpretation of II is that one of the
chief authoritiesof the Ridda,Sayfb. 'Umir, was of B. Tamim.He
probablytried to cover up the extent of his tribe's "apostasy"by
suppressinginformationon the size of the non-Muslimfactionsof
the tribeand theiractivities3). Anotherproblemis thatthe B. Tamim
were dividedinto a numberof factions,operatingmore or less inde-
pendentlyof each other. The strengthof these factions fluctuated
frequently,and the sourcesrefer collectivelyto B. Tamim,with no
specificationof the factioninvolved4). Thusit is impossibleaccurately
to estimatethe strengthof the anti-Muslimfactionin B. Tamim,with
the exceptionof the membersof B. Tamimfollowing Sadiih, dis-
cussedbelow.
As accountII stands,it recordsan attemptof Musaylima to reconcile
his followerswith theirnomadicneighbors,althoughthe outcomeof
the negotiations,as in the firststory,is not specified.
III. In thelatterpartof Musaylima's careeran alliancewasconcluded
with the "false"prophetessSadj.h of B. Tamim.After she and her
followerswere severelybeatenby other sectionsof B. Tamim,they
decided to join Musaylimain al-Yamama5). Their encounter occurred
there at either al-Haddjr
or al-Amwih 6).
') Tab., p.
2)
1933.p. I39.
Watt, Medina,
3) Ibid., p. 139.
4) Detailed contemporarydescriptions of how rapid fluctuations in the strength
of various tribal sections occur and some of the factors involved can be found in
A. de Boucheman, "Note sur la Rivalt6 de Deux Tribus", REI, VIII (1934), 9-58,
and E. Peters, "The Proliferation of Segments in the Lineage of the Bedouin of
Cyrenaica",]JRAI, XC (1960), 29-5 .
I) Bnlgdhuri,p. III. 6) SEI, p. 435.
 MUSAYLIMA 45

There are three basic accounts of their meeting. The first, the most
unreliable,is that the two prophets unified their worldly and spiritual
interests, married, and remained together until Musaylima'sdeath at
'Akrabi'. The second is that they married, whereupon Musaylima
cast her off, and she returnedto her people. The third is that Musaylima
was either raided by Sadijh, or feared her presence might provoke an
attack by his more formidableenemies, so he offeredher half the year's
harvest plus half the harvest in the coming year if she consented to
depart1).
The first account, depicting lewd relations between Musaylimaand
Sadijh 2), should be regarded as highly suspect; most European
sourcesagreethat this accountwas a laterinvention designed to blacken
the reputationof the two. A "wedding" between the two culminating
in a "lustful orgy" 3), would contradict the other evidence regarding
Musaylima's teachings and conduct. Secondly, contrary to the usual
practice in Tabari, no isndad
is supplied for the account, other than that
it came from someone "other than Sayf" 4). While a plausible isnid is
no sure guarantee of veracity, the complete lack of one is an almost
sure sign of fabrication.As for the claim that Sad4ih remained with
Musaylimauntil his death, there is no hint of her presenceat the battle
of 'AkrabSi'.Finally, in this account Sajihi recognizes Musaylimaas a
prophet, whereupon he says: "Shall I marryyou? Then I can conquer
the Arabs (al-'Arab) with your people and mine" 5). Considering the
weakened condition of Sad~h's "army" after a series of defeats and
Musaylima's tenuous position, surrounded by the Muslims and other
groups traditionally hostile to B. IHanifa(such as B. Tamim), it is
doubtful whether plans for the conquest of all of Arabia were actually
contemplated. Thus on four counts the "lewd marriage" version may
be regarded as highly suspect.
The remaining two versions of their meeting are from Sayf, and seem
I) The various accounts are summarizedin SEI, pp. 485-486.
2) Tab., pp. 1916-1918.
3) SEI, p. 485.
4) Tab., p. 19x7; Caetani,p. 645.
s) Tab., p. Ig98.
46 DALE F. EICKELMAN

more consistent. From them it can be assumed that was in

Sadj.h
al-Yamima only to raid its rich regions 1), or that alternatively Sadji~h
had fled to Musaylima for support, but was sent away or "bought off".
In either case Musaylima offered her half that year's harvest and half
that of the following year. by either account, remained in al-
Sadj.h,
YamIma for only a short time, and then rode off with the booty,
leaving behind only a small detachment of men to collect the rest 2).
Musaylima would have every reason to want departure.
He was being menaced by the Muslim forces, and Sadj.h's
the surrounding
tribes, such as B. Asad and B. Tamim, as the previous accounts suggest,
were constant threats to his authority. Even if had at one time
the loyalty of many elementsof B. Tamim, she was Sadj.h
a thorn in their side
in the year or so preceding 'Akrabi'. Many of B. Tamim were wavering
between "conversion" to Islim and resistance to it3); Musaylima's
harboring of an outcast member of Tamim and her following would
only serve to increasethe strainon B. Hanifa-B.Tamim relations. This
situation could be manipulatedby the Muslimforces to their advantage,
and probably was, since B. Tamim elements joined forces with Khilid
at the battle of 'AkrabB'.For this reason, ratherthan because of Sadjih's
military strength, Musaylimaprobablyfeared her presence and desired
her rapid departurefrom al-Yamlima4).
In either of the last two accounts, in one of which a "marriage"
between the two is mentioned without embellishments, it seems clear
that some sort of political alliance or accomodation was concluded,
although once again many details of the transactionremain obscure 5).
By all appearancesMusaylimawas either outmanoeuvereddiplomati-
cally, or had not acted as a skillful leader. If the best ally he could find
was Sadj~lh,he was in desperatestraits. His condition was even worse
if he had to yield to her extortion of half al-Yam~ma'sharvest, as the
other account suggests.
i) Barthold, 505.
Tab., pp. 1919-1920; SEI, pp. 485-486.
2) 3) SEI, p. 485.
4) Tab., pp. 1935-1916.
Marriagehere would seem to be primarilya means of sealing an agreement or
5)
a political alliance, if one actually did occur.
 MUSAYLIMA 47

As the above three accounts indicate, only a few details survive on

the nature of Musaylima'salliances with other tribes. However from
the accounts that follow, a patternfinallybegins to emerge, suggesting
that Musaylima'sconception of authority was not far removed from
that of the head of a traditionaltribal confederation.Musaylima,like
Muhammad, claimed prophecy, although nowhere is there an indication
that Musaylima, like Muhammad, emphasized obedience to himself
on the basis of a nonkin rationale,transcendingthe existing system of
tribal and kin organization. The thread of unity in the following
accounts is Musaylima'sclaim to authority on the basis of his tribal
and kin affiliationswith his followers.
IV. The tribal basis of his authority comes out most clearly in the
differingaccounts of his relationswith Muhammad,the most probable
of which report a correspondencebetween the two, appearing with
only minor variationsin severalof the traditionalchronicles.According
to Ibn Ish~ik,Musaylimawrote to Muhammadin 632: "I have been
made partner with you in authority. To us belongshalf the landand to
9uraysh half, but Quraysh are a hostile people". Muhammadreplied:
"Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. The earthis God's.
He lets whom he will of his creatures inherit it and the result is to the
pious" 1).
This account has several arguments in favor of its validity. First,
it coincides with what is known in general of Musaylima'smovement
-that it was an attempt to create an independent principality in
al-Yam1maand to reject external authority of any sort. Hawdha, to
it is remembered, rejected a written invitation of Muhammad'sto
convert to Islam by suggesting that he should become Muhammad's
co-ruler and heir. The exchange of correspondence detailed above
suggests that Musaylima renewed Hawdha's offer, albeit in a slightly
modified form. Secondly, there are no details in the "letter" account
which betray later fabrication, such as in the "delegation" account
which has Musaylima hiding with the delegation's baggage, or in
"garments". Finally, Ibn does not preface the above passage
Ish.k
p. 699; cf. Tab., pp. 1748-I749.
I) Italics mine, D.E.; Ibn Ish.1k,
48 DALE F. EICKELMAN

with the words "he alleged", which occur in the delegation story,
the alternate explanation of relations between the two claimants of
prophecy.
The previously-discussed accounts of Nahar ar-Radjdjil are not
incompatible with those of the exchange of correspondence.Whether
it is assumed that Nahir was an apostate member of the B.
delegation to Muhammador a renegade IKur'inicteacher, Musaylima.Hanifa
is not made to claim ascendancyover other claims to prophecy (and
therefore to political leadership), as did Muhammad: Musaylima's
claim to authorityseems limited to the B. except where explicit
.Hanifa,
agreementswith other prophets or leaderswere made, as with Saah.h,
or the one he tried to make with Muhammad.
V. The following accounts underscore even more emphatically
that Musaylima's claim to authority was based upon the traditional
ties of tribe and kin, as opposed to the innovatory, non-kin rationale
(innovatory at least in emphasis) which buttressed the Muslim claim.
Shu'ib related to us, from Sayf, from Khlilid b. Dhafara al-Namari, from
'Amir b. Talhlaan-Namari, from his father [who like Musaylimabelonged to
B. Rabi'a, which included B. Hanifa],came to al-Yam~maand asked: "Where is
Musaylima?"... and when he found him he said: "Are you Musaylima?"
He said: "Yes".
"Who comes to you?"
"Ar-Rahman".
"In light or in shadows?"
"In shadows".
"I testify that you are a liar and that Muhammadis telling the truth. But a
liar of the Rabi'a is better for us than a true prophet of the Mudar" [Muham-
mad's tribal group] 2).
Tabarifollows the above accountby anotherin which the isnid,
and the latterpart of the story,are changed.It reads:"FromShu'ib,
from Sayf,from al-Kalbi."The last line is changed,so that Talha's
fatheris madeto be more scepticalof the propheticclaimsof both
Muhammadand Musaylima:"A liar of the Rabi'ais betterthana liar
of the Mudar" 2)
Both stories can be explainedby referenceto prevailingcustom.
1) Tab., p. 1937.
2) Ibid., p. I937.
 MUSAYLIMA 49

Submission to the leader of another tribal group, whether or not it

involved a payment of tribute, would result in a serious loss of status
to the submitting tribe. By tribal custom the submission of one tribal
group to another is a sign of the inability of a tribe to defend itself ').
Submissionto Islam would be prone to interpretationin this manner,
particularlyby tribes such as B. Hanifa who where outside of the
Hidjiiz and never connected with any pre-Islimic Hidijazi-basedharam
or confederation.The emphasisof both variantsof V is upon the tribal
affiliation of the prophet. The second version, in addition, suggests
that the innovatory conception of the Arab prophet, with the corres-
ponding alterations in leadership institutions, was not universally
acknowledged as being "divinely inspired"by seventh-centuryArabs.
The wording of several of the "miracle"stories also indicates that
Musaylimaappealed to his followers (or was accepted by them) as a
prophetintendedonly for his specifictribalgroup. For instance,a woman
of B. Hanifa is supposed to have said to Musaylima:"Our palms are
shrivelled and our wells are dry. Invoke God for our water and for
our palms, as did Mu.hammad
for thepeople of Hamdn" 2).
Thus in contrast to Islamic ideology and practice,Musaylimaseems
to have remainedmuch closer to the traditionalpattern of inter-tribal
relations and kin-based society. Perhaps his strength was that he har-
nessed the tide of "tribalism"-or possibly that of regionalism-in his
favor, in opposition to assimilationinto the Islamic movement. Within
this traditionalframework Musaylimahad considerablesupport, as is
illustratedby the reported40,000 troops underhis commandat 'Aqrabi'
in 634. However Musaylimadoes not seem to have extended, or to
have intendedto extend, his authoritymuch beyond the tribal,or regio-
nal, authorityheld by his predecessor,Hawdha.The concept of prophet
seems to be fused with that of the traditionalchief of a tribe, although
the religious element was more strongly emphasized.
This limited vision, or inability furtherto expand his authority,per-

I) See Rosenfeld, 76-77; also Glubb, "The Bedouins of Northern Arabia [mis-
printed "'Iraq"]",JRCAS, XXII (i 93), I .
2) Tab., p. 1934.
JESHo, X 4
 0 DALE F. EICKELMAN

haps explains why there are no accounts of any agressive military

actions on the part of Musaylimaand his partisans.In fact, the only
recorded offensive action is the assassination of a Muslim emissary
travelling from Bahraynto Mecca, which is far below the scale of a
militaryventure or even an offensive raid1).
Accounts of Musaylimaat the Battle of 'AkrabP'similarlyindicate
that-despite his alleged numerical superiority-he passively waited
for the Muslim attack 2). Musaylima's battle cries at 'Akrabi' seem to
be those suitable to a sedentary people interested only in defending
their lands; they show neither signs of the promise of booty or heaven
which Islam had to offer, nor exaltation of military virtues. Musay-
lima's followers are exhorted to fight for their tribe and their relatives,
again reinforcing the limited conception of leadership with which
Musaylimaoperated:
O. B. Hanifa, today is the day of defending [your] honor; if the enemy puts
you to flight the women will be taken prisoners and will be marriedshamefully
[i.e. outside of your tribe]; so fight for your lands and protect your woment 3)

Conclusion
The evidence presented here strongly indicates that the response
of B. Hanifa to increasingpressurefrom Islam, in the light of respect
for tribal tradition and values, was to maintain or strengthen their
independence by supporting a rival prophet of their own. One is
tempted to relate the case of Musaylimato the modern anthropological
literatureon the dynamicsof religious movements. As Yonina Talmon
has noted, it is common for rival "religious revitalization" movements
to crystallizein reactionto the other. The spread of independentmove-
ments is particularlycontagious when the basis for claims to leadership
is revelation, as any number of leaders and prophets can claim divine
inspiration4). Arab prophetic movements rival to Islam would then be
I) Ibn Ishik, p. 2 z.
z) John Bagot Glubb, The Great Arab Conquests(Englewood Cliffs, 1963), pp.
111-114. 3) Tab., p. 1939; cLfBalidhuri, p. 136.
4) "Pursuit of the Millennium: The Relation between Religious and Social
Change", in A Readerin Comparative
Religion,eds. W. Lessa and E. Z. Vogt (New
York, 1965), pp. 528-529.
 MUSAYLIMA 5I

interpretedas having been given impetus by Islam'sexpansion,whether

initially "spin-offs" from Islam or movements independent in con-
ception.
Unfortunately there is not enough data on Musaylimato confirm
such an interpretation,as appealingas it is in its clarity.It is only during
the Ridda, the period of the consolidation of Muslim power over
regions outside of the Hidji•z,that we hearof Musaylima.Did the Ridda
serve as an inspiration and catalyst to Musaylima's career, impelling
B. to raise him to power as a focal point of resistance to Islam?
.Hanifa
Was the primary fear the threat of Islam to their tribalistic conception
of society? Or did Musaylima's career begin independent of Islam
(whatever later borrowings from it may have occurred), only to clash
eventually with Muslim armies and be vanquished by them? These
questions cannot be answeredat the present. All that can be concluded
with certainty is that Musaylima was a religious and political leader
claiming prophetic powers. At the time of the Ridda he led resistance
in al-Yamama to encroachment by Islam. Extant evidence suggests
that much of his support came from his appeal as a tribal or regional
prophet. How much of Musaylima'srise to power was due to a skillful
manipulationof B. Hanifa on his part or by an aide such as an-Nahir,
or to his simple availabilityas a leader to a populace ready to seize
upon any focus of resistance,cannot be determined.
Symbolically, Musaylima'sdefeat in 634 was a test of strength of
two antithetical world-views. The Islamic movement by 632 began
realizing its goal of making the Arabs one people, offered a social,
political, and ideological system superiorto triballoyalties, and exacted
from the Arabs obedience to a centralizedauthority. In exchange for
submission to this authority, Islam held out rewards, religious and
otherwise. Islam extolled the virtue of fighting in its behalf. As success
after success followed in the wake of the Muslim generals,enthusiasm
for Islam spread among all tribes, nomad and settled. As Balidhuri
and many writers since have observed, motives for submitting to
Islam were mixed, but by the end of the Ridda all Arabiahad united in
the cause of Islam. By then, the Arabs were strong enough to carry
52 EICKELMAN, MUSAYLIMA

their faith, and political hegemony, to other lands 1). In contrast,

Musaylima had no super-tribal ideology to offer, or none which gene-
rated any enthusiasm beyond the confines of al-Yamima. Likewise there
is no sign that Musaylima ever emphasized warrior virtues, or intended
conquest. His world-view offered little to Arabs outside B. Hanifa,
and his fumbling attempts to reconcile B. Hanifa to their neighbors
paled beside the considerably grander scale of unity being developed
by Islam.
In a pragmatic sense success is the final test of a prophetic movement
(and its ideology) whose aim is to establish or maintain an independent
principality. Musaylima's movement failed this test. Islam did not.
It is clear that we do not know all of the factors which lay behind the
vicissitudes of Musaylima's movement, but of what is known, Musay-
lima's attitude towards tribalism seems intimately linked with his rise
and fall.

I) Bal~idhuriwrites that after the wars of the Ridda were over and Abu Bakr
preparedto move against Syria, "people, including those actuated by greed as well
as those actuated by the hope of divine renumeration,hastened to abu-Bakrfrom
all quarters . ." (p. 165).
It is interesting to compare Balidhuri's description of the varying reasons men
flocked to Medinato participatein the conquests with Holt's analysisof the followers
of the Mahdi,in TheMahdistStatein theSudan(Oxford, I963), p. 1 7. Holt also records
that two of the most serious rebellions against the Mahdi's power came from men
whom, under the banner of tribalism, themselves claimed prophecy and organized
their respective tribal groups against the Mahdist state (pp. 138-140). This presents
an interesting parallel to the case of Musaylima,although the parallel can hardly
be developed because of the lack of detailed information.