Academic literature on the topic 'Banū Yaznāsun (Arab tribe)'

Created in the 7th century, Uzrit love poetry or desert love poetry is inspired by love. It is named after the tribe to which poet Džemil (Ğamīl), one of the most famous love poets, belonged. In these poems, a lover spends his whole life in longing and absence, yearning for his beloved one. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, European romanticists sang and composed songs following, among others, Uzrit poets. Thus, Heinrich Heine sang the song Der Azra, writing down the Arab tradition of the Banu ʻUzra (Banū ʻUḏra) tribe that "for love lose their heads and die when they kiss". Hajne also influenced romanticists, such as Bašagić and Kostić. We can assume that Bašagić was directly influenced by the Arab love poetry of the desert because he knew the Arabic language, studied at university, and translated numerous poems from the Arabic language. However, when it comes to Kostić, the influence was indirect. A factor that should not be excluded from the research on the influence of Uzrit love, as a phenomenon, on romanticism, but also on the entire literature of the Balkan peoples, is folk poetry, which is filled with motifs from the East, and especially the Uzrit understanding of love. We witness the unavoidable influence of numerous folk songs, which later grew into songs sung with musical instruments, sevdalinkas, which the poets of the Balkans, regardless of national-confessional affiliation were exposed to. That folk lyric sang about exactly what Uzrit poetry sang about and it often drew its motifs from the Uzrit understanding of love. Keywords: comparative literature, Uzrit poetry, romanticism, Safvet-beg Bašagić, Laza Kostić

Abstract The fiscal tradition regarding the taxation of the “Christians of the Banū Taġlib” is related to a ṣulḥ established by caliph ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb. He is said to have ordered to double the social contribution of Muslims, called ṣadaqa, in return for their renunciation of baptizing their children. This contribution analyzes the chronology of the emergence of this case in Abbasid literature. By studying the isnād on which scholars, beginning with the Grand Qāḍī Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798), relied, I suggest a new theme at the end of the eighth century CE. On the one hand, all the issues of the ṣadaqa levying, the social bonds with Christian Arabs, and finally, the category of the Banū Taġlib itself, are related to the ongoing construction, and then to the freezing, of two social categories: the ethnical “arabness” and the genealogical tribal organization. On the other hand, Miaphysite ecclesiology confirms a consistent timeline for the rise of the Taglibōyē bishopric. In order to explain this late inrush of information, two events of ca. 153/770 and 171/787, respectively from the Syrian-Orthodox and the Arab-Muslim literatures, refer first to the migration/invasion of pastoralists and farmers of Banū Taġlib towards the north, and second to their anti-ṣadaqa revolt in the steppe of the hinterland of Mosul. The second occurrence takes place amidst numerous local insurgencies whose motivation are in part tribal, khariji, and – perhaps foremost – anti-fiscal. Indeed, the dynamics of formation of this peculiar Mosulian tribe were partly generated by the irruption of the state in Northern Iraq and the Jazīra during the 170s/790s, between al-Mahdī’s founding of Rāfiqa in ca. 154/772 and Hārūn al-Rashīd’s strengthening of administrative pressure. The key factor for state building at this time was the development of a new set of taxation on agricultural incomes of (Muslim) Arabs, called ṣadaqat al-māl or zakāt, whose first traces are attested in Middle Egypt during the late Marwānid period. A generation later, the anonymous author of Zuqnīn, who lived at the beginning of this period, is not only the first Syriac writer to mention the Taglibōyē, but also bears witness of the first extension of the levy of ṣadaqa to Northern Mesopotamia. He even gives data about its ex officio settlement (taʿdīl) as a non-proportional (ʿalā misāḥa) and in-cash tax, exactly the same as for the properties of the (Christian) Syrians. Both kinds of rural landlords probably petitioned against this system during the following decades, aiming to switch to a proportional (muqāsama) and in-kind method of taxation. This resistance perhaps involved the anti-ṣadaqa revolt of the Taġlib in 171/787, as it was decisive to transform the kharāj on the Muslims into a tenth (ʿushr). Whereas Abū Yūsuf suggests an analogical doubling of the tax on a Muslim land to convert it into kharāj for a Christian purchaser, the very idea of a double ṣadaqa as kharāj for Christian Arabs had perhaps been invented a very short time before.

Статья представляет собой анализ политики Сасанидов в областях нижнего течения Евфрата, пограничных между их владениями и Аравией, в первой трети VII в. В начале этого периода в системе управления произошли значительные изменения: сасанидский царь Хосров II Парвиз (591–628), утратив доверие к арабским правителям и вождям, упразднил государство Лахмидов и назначил иранских наместников. По данным источников хронологию правления наместников Хиры можно реконструировать следующим образом: Нахварган – 602–611 (9 лет), Азад-вех – 611–628 (17 лет). Нахварган почти не находился в Хире, вероятно, будучи задействован в ведении войны с Византией. Азад-вех, напротив, пребывал в Хире, где его резиденцией был Каср бани Букайла. В начале 628 г. он в связи со свержением Хосрова на время покинул Хиру (что отразилось в хирских записях как окончание его правления), однако впоследствии вернулся и управлял ею до мусульманского завоевания в 633 г. Решительные действия Хосрова и его наместников привели к прекращению набегов арабов и подчинению племени бану Шайбан, ранее одержавших победу над персами при зу Каре (602 г.), власти Сасанидов. В то же время на более низком уровне некоторые знатные арабские роды Хиры сохранили свои позиции. This article is a study of the Sassanids’ politics in the regions of the lower course of Euphrates, a border between their possessions and Arabia, in the first third of the 7th c. The beginning of that period was the time of significant changes as Sassanid King Khusraw II Abarwēz (591–628), having lost confidence in Arab rulers and chieftains, abolished the Lakhmid state and appointed Iranian governors. The extant data in the historical sources allow to re-construct the chronology of the governors’ rule in Hira as follows: Nakhwargān – 602–611 (9 years), Āzādwēh – 611–628 (17 years). Nakhwargān was almost never present in Hira, probably being engaged in the war against Byzantium. Āzād-wēh, on the contrary, stayed in Hira where his residence was at K. as. r banī Bukayla. At the beginning of 628 he left Hira for a period in connection with the overthrow of Khusraw, which was presented in the annals of Hira as the end of his governorship, but later returned there and ruled until the Muslim conquest in 633. Drastic measures taken by Khusraw and his governors resulted in the cessation of Arab attacks and the submission of the Banū Shaybān tribe (which had previously won the famous battle of dhū K. ār in 602) to the Sassanids. However, on the lower level several noble Arab families of Hira preserved their positions.

At some time towards the end of the first/seventh century, a relatively trivial incident took place.1 An Arab of the tribe of Tamīm called Hammām b. Ghālib visited a clan not his own, the Banū Minqar, also belonging to Tamīm. A woman, waking up her daughter called Ẓamyāʾ, found that a snake had crept into her clothes. She cried for help and Hammām, who happened to be nearby, chased the snake away by throwing some dust at it. The snake had probably been attracted by the warmth of the girl’s body; Hammām was attracted to it in turn: he touched the girl and kissed her, but she resisted and he left, making a mocking epigram on her and her clan. When her relatives heard this, they were angry and one of them called ʿAmr (or ʿImrān) b. Murra, who was sent to play a trick upon Hammām’s sister, Jiʿthin. ʿAmr lay in wait for her and approached her unawares when, at night, she left her tent ‘to do her business’. He put his hands on her hip and her leg and dragged her along for some distance. She cried out and when her tribesmen hastened to the scene ʿAmr fled. In another version, there were, in fact, three other men, who together with ʿAmr/ʿImrān dragged Jiʿthin from her tent.