ABRAHA QummT, 132,157).

Sayyid Ahmad Husaynl Mashhadl Katib, compiler of the muraqqa' of Amir Ghayb Beg, one of the governors appointed by Shah Tahmasp, also repeated the point made by Qutb al-Dln, with the difference that he only referred to six motifs (Bayani, 1/44, 49, 52). Sadiq Beg Afshar (933 or 940-1017/1527 or 1534-1608) who was librarian to Sultan Muhammad Khudabandah and Shah 'Abbas I, states in the versified work, Qanun al-suwar (p. 37), 'In describing paintings': Should you know of abr and waq Like the morning-glory you will desire farangi. Qumml (p. 132) reiterates Qutb al-Dln's point without adding any further explanation. In the footnotes to the English translation of Gulistan-i hunar, Minorsky confuses abr and abr-i chini with abri and kaghadh-i abri (afof-paper) and says: 'Abr or abri... according to Dr M. Bayani this refers to the technique of covering the paper with designs shaped like clouds. Perhaps it refers also to the wisps of clouds (Chinese ch'i) figuring on Persian miniatures' (p. 178). But in the field of art the terms abr and abri are distinct from one another: the first (abrsazi) is a motif used in painting, while the second [abri-sazi] is an expression used in the art of making and decorating sheets of paper (q.v. abri). The motif used in Persian painting known as abr-i chini is believed to have originated from the patterns on blue and white vessels, particularly vases, made in China. From there it became an influence on miniature and other branches of painting, and eventually became an established motif in Persian painting. Aside from painting, abr or abr-i chini can sometimes be seen in carpet motifs, textile and brocade design, hal-kari (illumination using gold paint), hair-pin ornamentation (tash'ir), metalwork, plaster-work, tile designs, as well as in designs and ornamentation on bookbinding. However, its greatest use has been in painting, particularly in

365

miniatures. The use of cloud-forms (abrsazi) in Persian painting has undergone a great evolution throughout the centuries and has come to embrace a wide variety of forms. It is for this reason that like floral ornament, landscape, animal forms, hairpin ornamentation and manuscript illumination, as a motif it has come into its own, quite distinct from other motifs such as islimi, khatd% farangi-sazi, girih (geometric patterning) etc.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

'Abdl Beg ShlrazT, Zayn al-'Abidln 'All, Dawhat al-azhdr, ed. 'All Mlna'l Tabriz! and A. Rahimov (Moscow, 1974); Afshar, Sadiq Beg, Qanun al-suwar, ed. A. Gaziev (Baku, 1963); Bayani, Mahdl, Ahwal wa athdr-i khushniwisdn (Tehran, 1345 Sh./1966); QummT, Qadl Ahmad, Ahmad b. Husayn, Gulistan-i hunar, ed. Ahmad Suhayll Kfransarl (Tehran, 1352 Sh./1973); idem, Calligraphers and Painters, a Treatise by Qadi Ahmad, Son of Mir Munshi, circa A.H. 1015/A.D. 1606, tr. V Minorsky (Washington, 1959); Qutb al-Dln Muhammad Qissa Khan, 'Risala'l dar tarlkh-i khatt wa naqqashf, ed. Husayn KhadlwJam, Sukhan, 17, nos. 6, 7 (Tehran, 1346 Sh./1967), pp. 666-677.
YAHYA DHOKA' TR. ROXANE ZAND

Abraha was one of the most famous Christian rulers of Yemen, known as 'the possessor of the elephant' (see the Qur'an, Surat al-Fil, 105:1-5). He came originally from Ethiopia, and acceded to power around 530 CE. Abraha, which is a non-Arabic word (al-Jawaliql, 20), is the Amharic equivalent of Ibrahim (Ibn Durayd, 532; Wahb b. Munabbih, 136; Noldeke, 332) or Abraham ('Abidln, 59) (cf. variant spellings for Ibrahim in Jeffery, 44-45). The name appears in the history of the kings of Aksum (Ethiopia) ('Abidln, 15). According to Procopius (Book 1, ch. 22, p. 4), Abraha was a slave. This could be a hyperbolic reflection of the beliefs and customs of the people of Ethiopia or of the merchants of that region. However, Abu al-Faraj's statement (17/72) to the

366 effect that he was an isolated individual, of unknown lineage, supports this claim, especially since it is completely independent of the account given by Procopius (Noldeke, 336). On the other hand, some have claimed that Abraha might have been a Christian priest ('Abidln, 15). This is supported by al-Taban's reports [Ta'rikh, 1/930, 932), deriving from Ibn al-Kalbl and Ibn Ishaq, and in particular by the report from Ibn Ishaq that states that Abraha was a Christian, a patient, noble, great and pious man' (Ta'nkh, 1/933). Although both reports mention Abraha's perfidious methods of obtaining power, unlike Abu al-Faraj's report they present a positive view of him (Noldeke, 336). However, this view is clearly unreliable, because Muslim historians, particularly Ibn Ishaq, tended merely to repeat Byzantine Christian reports, deriving from Syriac and Greek sources on the pre-Islamic period, reports in which, intentionally or otherwise, reality and fantasy are mixed together ('Abidln citing al-Juwaydl, 50). The material in the Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Greek and Arabic sources, including inscriptions on tablets, does not provide a very clear picture of Abraha's biography. While non-Arabic sources refer to many specific documented events in Abraha's life, early Islamic accounts mostly identify him simply through the story of the elephant. There are fictitious reports and fabrications scattered throughout all these accounts. As with the image of prominent historical characters in mythological narratives, several different Abrahas have been created out of the original. These various Abrahas lived in a variety of different historical periods, beginning with that of Solomon and ending with the time of the real Abraha. Abraha ruled over the lands of Saba and Himyar ('All, 3/507, 4/418). Hence Abraha's name is* found in pre-Islamic poetry (al-Sandubl, 192) and it became a byword for power, courage and just renown. He was even considered one of those rare individuals in this transitory world from whose life lessons can be learnt ('All, 3/483). In contrast to the virtual unanimity of opinion found among independent sources, the Arabic sources disagree over names, roles, the times and places of events in his life, all of which tends to fictionalise the events depicted. For instance, regarding the Najran massacre (see below), one report states that Daws Dhu Tha'laban was a Christian who went to Constantinople to seek assistance from the Byzantines, while another report refers to him as ajew whose children had been killed by Christians. These minor differences can be ignored, but the truth cannot be established without the help of new, substantiated sources.
H I S T O R I C A L BACKGROUND

During the 5th and 6th centuries CE, Persia and Byzantium both believed that it would be to their benefit to increase their influence in the Arabian Peninsula. Persia, which since ancient times had controlled the silk trade, imposed high tariffs on Byzantine products and goods. Notably during the wars between the two powers, Persia banned the export of silk to Byzantine lands (Runciman, 164165). In response Byzantium tried to establish secure trade routes by both land and sea from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean via the Red Sea, seeking to eliminate the threat of the Himyarites to Byzantine shipping. In general, Byzantium attempted to increase its religious and political influence over the Arabs as a line of defence against Persia ('All, 7/282). In its attempts to destroy Persia, Byzantium disregarded religious affiliation and allied itself with Himyarites of both the Jewish and what were termed 'Hellenic' faiths (Procopius, Book 1, ch. 20/1). Aksum had previously attacked the Himyarites on several occasions in order to protect its trade routes through the Red Sea,

ABRAHA and once it was converted to Christianity, it completely identified itself in religious, economic and political terms with the interests of Byzantium. The Byzantines increased their influence in those areas, and also in India and Arab lands, by sending Christian missionaries, and also by building grand palatial churches. On the other hand, in an effort to put obstacles in the path of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, Persia attempted to promote Monophysite Christianity both inside and outside its borders, despite the fact that its own official state religion was Zoroastrianism ('All, 2/626-627, 629; Danielou, 369-371). The tension between these two great powers of the period polarised the tribes of the peninsula into two groupings, the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids, which played the role of buffer zones between the Byzantine and Persian empires. However, the conflicts between them also often fuelled the war between Byzantium and Persia (Pigulevskaia, 39). During the second half of the 4th century Christianity penetrated Najran in Yemen, and it flourished there during the 5th and 6th centuries (Aphram, 23(l)/5). Dhu Nuwas, the last Jewish king of Himyar, was apprehensive of the inroads in Yemen made by the Christians of Aksilm. He believed that Christian propaganda was placing his independence and sovereignty, in jeopardy, and at the end of 523 he attacked Najran and massacred its inhabitants. Arabic sources give different genealogies for Dhu Nuwas (see Fell, 17). However, an open-minded approach to the sources allows one to accept Ibn Khaldun's statement (2(1)/111) that 'historians state that Dhu Nuwas was the son of Tibban As'ad and his name was Zur'a. Indeed he was given the title "Yusuf", because he reconquered his forefathers' lands'. Different sources variously refer to Esimiphaeus (Esimiphaios or Simiphaios), Aryat and Abraha as the successors to

367

Dhu Nuwas. In both the Himyarite stone inscriptions (where the name Esimiphaeus appears as Sumyafa' or Sumuyafa' Ashwa1) and Procopius, of the three of them it is Esimiphaeus who is named as immediate successor to Dhu Nuwas. This is not discussed in the Arabic sources. Furthermore, the non-Arabic sources do not refer to Aryat (which is probably a distortion of the Abyssinian 'Hawariyath', meaning Hawaff, or purity and religiosity: 'Abidln, 59) as Dhu Nuwas's successor. In order to clarify these ambiguities, various suggestions have been put forward. In Mordtmann's view (p. 68), Aryat is none other than Esimiphaeus (regarding Noldeke's doubts on this, see 336, 332, 333); Caussin de Perceval refers to all three men as semi-independent rulers of various regions, for instance, Aryat as the vicegerent of the Negus in Yemen, and Esimiphaeus as the chief of the Christian Arabs who followed Aryat (Fell, 40, 41). In contrast to the standard view, alAzraqT's statement (1/136) concerning Abraha's governorship over Janad and his fealty to Aryat, and the reports in Hamza al-Isfaham (p. 89) and al-Tabarl (Ta'rikh, 1/930-931) which argue that Aryat was the vicegerent of Abraha and that Abraha was the king of Sana'a and its subordinate regions, seem unconvincing and unsatisfactory. The ambiguities in the reports of Arab historians seem to have arisen either because they confused two separate Ethiopian campaigns in Yemen during the reign of Dhu Nuwas, or because they refer to the one that was led by Aryat. According to al-Taban's exhaustive account, the downfall of Dhu Nuwas did not occur during the first Ethiopian campaign, but during the second, which was under the command of Abraha, when Aryat was absent. Therefore, contrary to the statements by al-Mas'tidl (2/52) and Hamza al-Isfaham (p. 89; Ibn Hisham, 1/43; al-Azraql, 1 /136) that Aryat governed Yemen for twenty years, his name should in fact be

368 eliminated from the list of Ethiopian vicegerents (Fell, 43-44). Byzantine accounts differ from the Ethiopian accounts on two points: firstly, although Abraha was appointed to a highranking position in the army, the second Ethiopian campaign in Yemen was under the command of the Negus himself, not Abraha; secondly, while Ethiopian reports refer to Abraha as the direct successor of the Negus, Procopius instead refers to Esimiphaeus as the direct successor of the Jewish king. Furthermore, he states that Abramus (Abraha) later carried out an attack on Yemen, taking the position of commander. Indeed, he argues that after the death of Dhu Nuwas, Hellestheaeus (Kalib al-Asbaha), the Negus of Ethiopia, appointed a Himyarite Christian called Esimiphaeus (Sumyafa1) as ruler, on condition of an annual payment of taxes, and then returned to Ethiopia (Procopius, Book 1, chap. 20, 1-2). Due to a paucity of facts, as well as to certain misreadings and erroneous interpretations of the 'Husn al-Ghurab' inscription (CIH 621), contradictory statements have been made about Sumyafa' Ashwa'. He has been regarded as an ambitious traitor, because he gave up his religion, and sought the help of outsiders, in order to seize power (Ryckmans, 6; Taqizadah, 5/8, 9). He has also been described as a patriotic prince who rebelled against the Ethiopian occupiers in order to expel them from the country ('Abidin, 57-58). The inscription in the Istanbul Museum of Antiquities (1st. 7608 bis), to which Ryckmans clearly refers, indicates that Sumyafa' Ashwa1 was a subject of the king of Ethiopia. If Sumyafa' Ashwa' was responsible for inscription CIH 621 (see Ryckmans' doubts in this regard, 7-10), then it can be concluded that he was appointed as the Ethiopian vicegerent in Yemen after Dhu Nuwas's reign, but a rebellion broke out and the Ethiopians appointed someone else in his place ('All, 3/476). The historical evidence indicates that Esimiphaeus's reign was fairly brief. Procopius refers to 'a short period' between his reign and the rebellion of Ethiopian militants under the leadership of Abramus (Abraha). Indeed, the emperor Justinian (r. 527-565) sent a certain Julianus as an envoy to Esimiphaeus, the king of-Ethiopia. He wanted him to sever trade relations with the Persians and also to declare war on them. After having met Esimiphaeus in 531, when Abraha rose in revolt ('All, 3/472, 473) the envoy went to the port of Adulis (Arabic sources: 'Udul) in order to meet Ella Asbeha (Kalib al-Asbaha or Hellestheaeus). Al-Mas'udi (2/53) also states that the rebellion of Abraha occurred during the reign of the Sasanid emperor Qubad, which,lasted until 531 (Procopius, Book 1, chap. 21/17; Christensen, 360362). As a result, 530 (or at the latest 531) should be regarded as the year in which Abraha became governor and also as the year in which his revolt began ('All, 3/481; Noldeke, 337).
ABRAHA'S GOVERNORSHIP

Al-Tabarl, reporting from Ibn Ishaq and Ibn al-Kalbl, refers to Abraha as being ambitious and traitorous from the very beginning. He writes that as soon as Abraha took power he rebelled and refused to pay tribute (Ta'rikh, 1/930). The Negus sent Aryat with a force to crush the rebellion, but Abraha, helped by his slave ('Atwada, 'Atuda, or Aranjada), killed Aryat in a hand-to-hand fight. Abu al-Faraj takes a similar position (17/307; al-Dlnawarl, 62), saying that Abraha revolted against Aryat because of the injustices he perpetrated against the Ethiopians. Hellestheaeus (Kalib al-Asbaha) duly sent a force of 3,000 men to deal with the rebels, but the troops killed their commander and joined Abraha. A second force sent by Hellestheaeus suffered a grave defeat and retreated (Procopius, Book 1, chap. 20/3-

ABRAHA 8). In this manner Abraha secured independent rule. When Hellestheaeus died, Abraha became the client of his successor and agreed to pay him annual tribute (cf. al-Tabarl, Ta'rikh, 1/933). If Procopius's report is to be trusted, one may conclude that Abraha's position was recognised at some point in time between 535 and 540 (Smith, 432). Consequently, those reports which place the Ethiopian king's appointment of Abraha as a 'pious Christian' to the governorship of Yemen after the conquest of Yemen are unsound, because they are at odds with accounts derived from other sources which are independent of one another (Noldeke, 337). Apart from various descriptions of the conquest of Yemen and the taking of power by Abraha, the remainder of the reliable historical information about Abraha comes from inscriptions. It is this material that sheds light on his style of politics and his governorship. In the texts of the most significant inscriptions, viz. CIH 541 and Glaser 618, which start with the phrase 'By the might, aid and mercy of the Merciful, and His Messiah, and the Holy Spirit', Abraha refers to himself as 'the successor of Shah Ja'zlhaRamhls Za Bayman (or Zabyaman), the king of Saba, Dhu Raydan, Hadramawt and Yamanat, and of their Arabs on the plateau and in the Tihama (coastal plain)' (lines 18). This title was customarily given to Himyarite governors. Although Abraha describes himself as the successor of the king of Aksum, he was in fact the absolute ruler of Yemen and the ally of the Negus of Ethiopia. In the inscription, Abraha appears to refer to the Negus as merely 'Shah JaV or 'the Ge'ez ruler' ('All, 3/483). It is unclear whether the Negus' name is Ramhls (Ramahis) or RamhTs Za Bayman actually. If spelt as 'Zabyaman', it could mean 'one who is in Yemen', in which case it would refer to Abraha himself (Bafaqlh, 159, 160; 'Abidln, 59). Smith, on the other hand, takes this whole section of the in-

369

scription in CIH 541 as a series of titles referring to Abraha as 'the king, the descendant of men of Ge'ez, the ramayhis, Za Bayman...' He comments that the name ramayhis might be a form of the Greek romaios, indicating that Abraha had claimed Roman (i.e. Byzantine) citizenship, and that Za Bayman is likely to be the more correct form than the 'Za Yabman' found on the Murayghan inscription (p. 437). The inscription also mentions the arrival of the following people: an embassy of the Negus, an embassy from the 'Roman' (i.e. Byzantine) king, a delegation of the king of Persia, an envoy of Mudhdhiran (Mundhir of Hlra), an envoy of Harith b. Jabala (the Ghassanid) and an envoy of Abi-karib (Abkarib) b. Jabala (lines 87-92). There is no doubt that the presence of these political forces in the region is indicative of the significance of Abraha and the strategic location of his realm. It seems that the mission of these emissaries was not merely to give messages of greeting to Abraha: their main goal was to assimilate him into either this or that camp (Persian or Byzantine). Justinian sought to weaken Persia, trying on numerous occasions to establish a confederation with Ethiopia and even with the Himyarites. When Abraha took power, Justinian made overtures of friendship towards him in order to implement the war-plan against Persia which he had suggested to Sumyafa' Ashwa'. Once Abraha had consolidated his rule, he promised Justinian that he would attack Persia. He dispatched an army but then, realising the difficulties involved and reckoning that his campaign would result in disaster, he abandoned the attack and returned home (Procopius, Book 1, chap. 20/13;'All, 3/490-491). There is another inscription by Abraha which is extant: Ry 506, dated Dhu alThabtan, 662 of the Himyaff calendar (April, 547 or 535 CE). It was found on a rock near the well of Murayghan (Beeston, 'Notes on the Mureighan Inscription', 389392; 'All, 3/493). The inscription states that

370 the large northern tribes of Ma'add and Band 'Amir rebelled in the spring season, in the month of Dhu al-Thabtan (April). It also states that the king (Abraha) sent the warriors of the Kiddat Wa'il (Kinda) and Sa'd tribes to fight against the Banu 'Amir and he himself attacked Haliban. Ma'add was finally defeated, and Abraha took hostages. He retained 'Amr b. Mundhir in his position as the chief of the tribe and returned home in 662 Himyari/547. According to some scholars, the inscription refers to Abraha's attack against Mecca in 'dm al-fil ('The Year of the Elephant'). Some argue that the object of this attack was merely to prepare the ground for an attack on the northern areas of the peninsula, but that it came to an end at Mecca ('All, 3/495). Others argue that the text of the inscription cannot refer to 'dm alfil, since the Murayghan inscription was written in 547, sixteen years before 563 (the Year of the Elephant). On the other hand, Beeston ('Notes on the Mureighan Inscription', pp. 389~392; Pigulevskaia, 128) argues that this inscription in fact refers to two conflicts: Abraha's campaign in Haliban, and the battle that took place in Tarban (al-Tarab, Turaban) between the Kiddat (Kinda) and the Sa'd Murad tribes on the one side, and the Banu 'Amir on the other. There is evidence for the occurrence of this event in the poems composed during that period. It seems that Tarban/Turaban is 'Turaba', a region in Najd, eighty miles southeast of Ta'if in the lands of the Banu 'Amir ('All, 3/497-498; Smith, 436). According to the Arabic sources, Abraha died in a plague epidemic soon after his return from Mecca (al-Tabaff, Tankh, 1/942). The Byzantine sources, however, do not give his date of death. There is a manuscript in the National Library in Vienna (former Royal Library), written in Greek by Grigentios, Bishop of Omir, at the request of Abraha, detailing the laws promulgated by the latter (Sedillot, 42, 43).
ABRAHA'S ATTACK ON M E C C A

According to the Arabic sources, Abraha built a grandiose and unusual temple called al-Qullays (from the Greek ekklesia) in Sana'a. He intended to divert the Arab pilgrimage to this cathedral (al-Azraql, 1/137, 138, 139). This so angered the Arabs that a member of the Banu Fuqaym tribe defiled al-Qullays. Abraha sought to destroy the Ka'ba by way of revenge and marched on Mecca with a great army, in the van of which was an elephant. On the way he defeated the various tribes that confronted him. When he approached Mecca, Hunata and Khuwaylid, the chiefs of the Bakr and the Hudhayl tribes, offered Abraha a third of the property in the district of Tihama in return for withdrawing and leaving the Ka'ba untouched, but Abraha rejected the offer. Then 'Abd al-Muttalib ordered the people to leave the city and retreat to the hills. He stood holding the ring of the door of the Ka'ba and uttered the following prayer: 'O God, thy slave protecteth his house. Protect Thou Thy House!' (Lings, 20). He then joined the rest of the Quraysh in the hills. According to the Qur'anic account (105:1-5), and as amplified by the commentators, God proceeded to destroy the army of Abraha by means of birds casting down pellets of clay {sijjil), and Abraha retreated to Yemen (al-Tabarl, Jami' al-bayan, 30/194, 195; Ibn Hisham, 1/49-54; al-SuhaylT, 1/263-267). Various, and sometimes utterly unfounded, reasons for Abraha's campaign against Mecca are given in the Active accounts provided by the Arabic sources. All the reports refer to al-Qullays and the Ka'ba (Abu Nu'aym, 101; al-Nlsabuff, 30/163; al-Suyutl, 6/394; al-Baghawl, 4/525, 526; al-Zamakhsharl, 4/285, 286; al-Qurtubl, 20/188). Clearly the Arabs came out against Abraha because they realised that a new situation had arisen which threatened their faith and their livelihood. There is no doubt that the underlying rea-

ABRAHA son for the war on Mecca involved more than the simple destruction of the Ka'ba. The goals of this campaign may well have been to expand the influence of Christianity in the western and southern regions of the peninsula and also to further the economic and political interests of the Byzantines and Ethiopians. Some scholars refer to the report about the killing of Muhammad b. Khuza'l b. Hazaba al-Dhakwanl as evidence to support this claim ('All, 3/512, 513; cf. Ibn Habib, 130). According to this account, Abraha made Muhammad b. Khuza'T chief of the Mudar tribe, and commanded him to encourage people to undertake the pilgrimage to al-Qullays; but Muhammad b. Khuza'l was killed by a man of the Hudhayl tribe (al-Taban, Ta'rikh, 1/935; idem, Jami' al-bayan, 30/194). Abraha, finding his plans for expansion under threat, tried to suppress the various rebellions that then erupted ('All, 3/51). There is no doubt that the kings of Yemen, with the assistance of regional princes, sought to gain the same influence as the Byzantines and Persians in the north of the peninsula in order to ensure the safety of the trade caravans. The presence of members of the Kinda tribe in Abraha's forces, to which independent sources refer (Ibn Hisham, 1/62; Cheikho, 1/229; Noldeke, 339), can be regarded as evidence of this. In .addition, the role of Byzantium should not be disregarded. Procopius relates that Abraha marched out of Yemen in order to keep his promise to Justinian (to attack Persia), but that he turned back almost immediately. Muslim accounts state that Abraha's campaign occurred in the year of Muhammad's birth (approximately 570 CE, given that the Prophet's mission began in the year 610 CE when he was forty years old). However, Abraha's attack probably took place before 570. Yemen was conquered by Persia in 575, and if the 570 date were taken as correct, it would leave little time for the latter part of the

371

governorship of Abraha and that of his sons (Pigulevskaia, 129, 130). According to Procopius, the attack on Mecca did take place earlier than 570. Arab historians (Salim, 168) point to the destruction of Abraha's 60,000-strong army in an epidemic (according to the hadith reported by 'Ikrima in al-Tabari's Jami' al-bayan, 30/193; idem, Ta'rikh, 1/945; cf. 'Abd Allah b. Ziba'ri's poems in the Sira of Ibn Hisham, 1/59). They believe that there must be some connection between that event and the catastrophic epidemic described by Procopius, which began in Pelusium in Egypt in 542 and then spread to Alexandria, Palestine and the 'whole world' (Book 2, chap. 22, pp. 1-6). If so, of the various dates which have been given for the 'Year of the Elephant' (al-Qurtubi, 20/194), the twenty-third year before Muhammad's birth, i.e. 547 CE, ought to be considered the correct one (Noldeke, 340).
BIBLIOGRAPHY

'Abidln, 'Abd al-Majld, Bayn al-Habasha wa al-'Arab (Beirut, n.d.); Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahanl, al-Aghdm, ed. 'All Muhammad al-BajawI (Cairo, 1389/1970); Abu Nu'aym al-Isfahanl, Ahmad b. 'Abd Allah, Kitab dald'il al-nubuwwa (Hyderabad, 1977); Aphram, Ignatius, 'Kitab alshuhada' al-Himyariyyln', Majallat al-Majma' al-'Ilmi al-'Arabl, 23, no.l (1948), pp. 5-7; 'All, Jawad, al-Mufassalfita'rikh al-'Arab qabl alIslam (Beirut and Baghdad, 1968); al-AzraqT, Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah, Akhbar Makka, ed. Rushdl al-Salih Malhas (Beirut, 1403/1983); Bafaqih, Muhammad 'Abd al-Qadir, Ta'rikh alYaman al-qadim (Beirut, 1985); al-Baghawi, Abu Muhammad al-Husayn, Tafsir Ma'dlim al-tanzil, ed. Khalid 'Abd al-Rahman al-'Akk (Beirut, 1406/1986); Beeston, A. F. L., 'Problems of Sabaean Chronology', BSOAS, 16/1 (1954), pp. 37-56; idem, 'Notes on the Mureighan Inscription', BSOAS, 16/2 (1954), pp. 389-392; Cheikho, Louis, Kitab shu'ard' al-Nasraniyya (Beirut, 1926); Christensen, Arthur, L'Iran sous les Sasanides (Copenhagen, 1944); Conrad, Lawrence, Abraha and Muhammad: Some Observations apropos of Chronology and Literary Topoi in the Early Arabic Historical Tradition', BSOAS, 50 (1987), pp. 225-240; Danielou, Jean, and Marrou, Henri, The Christian Centuries, tr. Vincent Cronin (New York, 1964), vol. 1; al-Dlnawarl, Ahmad b. Dawud, al-Akhbdr al-

372

A B R A H A M

tiwal, ed. 'Abd al-Mun'im 'Amir and Jamal Abraham (An Ibrahim) al-Khalll (the. al-Dln al-Shayyal (Baghdad, 1379/1959); Fell, 'intimate friend' of God) was the second Winand, 'Die Christenverfolgung in Sudaraarch-prophet (ulu al-'azm) and held to be bien und die himjarisch-athiopischen Kriege the ancestor of the Arabs through Ishnach abessinischer Uberlieferung', DMG, 35 (1881), pp. 1-74; Ibn Durayd, Muhammad, almael (Isma'il) and the Jews through Isaac Ishtiqdq, ed. 'Abd al-Salam Muhammad Harun (Ishaq). (Cairo, 1378/1958); Ibn Hablb, Muhammad, The variants of the name of Abraham al-Muhabbar, ed. Use Lichtenstadter (Hyderabad in both religious and secular sources, with 1361/1942); Ibn Hisham, Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik, al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, ed. Mustafa elongation, assimilation or displacement of al-Saqqa', Ibrahim al-Abyarl and 'Abd al-Haflz both letters and syllables, may be evidence Shalabi (Beirut, n.d.); Ibn Khaldun, Kitab alfor its prominence in the area of the Fertile 'Ibar (Beirut, 1956-1960); al-Isfahanl, Hamza, Ta'rikh sini muluk al-ard wa al-anbiyd' (Berlin,Crescent. The form 'Abram', given in the 1340/1921); al-Jawallql, Mawhub b. Ahmad, alfirst instance in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Mu 'arrab, ed. Ahmad Muhammad Shakir (Cairo, 1361/1942); Jeffery, Arthur, The Foreign Vocabu- 11:26), as well as the names Jacob (Ya'qub) lary of the Qur'an (Baroda, 1938); Lings, Martin, (Genesis, 25:26) and Joseph (Yusuf) (GenMuhammad: His Life based on the Earliest Sources esis, 30:24), is found among the Amorites (London, 1986); al-Mas'udl, 'All b. al-Husayn, and other peoples of that region in the Muruj al-dhahab, ed. Yusuf As'ad Daghir (Beirut, 20th and 19th centuries BCE (Albright, 3; n.d.); Mordtmann, J. H., 'Miscellen zur himjaSusah, 233). Other variants are also found rischen Alterthumskunde', <ZWG, 31 (1877), pp. 61-90; al-Nlsaburl, Hasan b. Muhammad, in Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions, Tafsir ghard'ib al-Qur'dn wa ragha'ib al-furqdn,such pub- as A-ba-ra-ma, A-bam-ra-ma, Ab-ralished in al-Tabart's Jdmi' al-baydn (see below) mu and Ab-ra-ma (Elder, 42; Susah, 263; (Bulaq, 1329/1911); Noldeke, Theodor, GeMawsu'a, 1/38); and also A-ba-am-ra-ma schichte der Perser und Araber zur ^eit der Sasaniden (Leiden, 1973); Pigulevskaia, Nina Viktorovna, and A-ba-am-ra-am in Akkadian inscripAraby u granits Vizantii i Irana v IV VI vv. (Mostions (Sarna, 112). Al-Jawallql (p. 13) also cow and Leningrad, 1964); Procopius, History of the Wars, tr. H. B. Dewing vol. 1, Books 1 and gives Ibraham, Ibrahum and Ibrahim 2 (London, 1954); al-Qurtubl, Muhammad b. and states that it is an ancient non-Ara- , Ahmad, al-Jdmi' li ahkdm al-Qur'dn, ed. Mustafa bic name. Al-Nawawi (1 (l)/98) gives these al-Saqqa' (Beirut, 1967); Rossini, Conti, 'Exsame forms without the medial alif (i.e. pedition et possessions des Habasat en Arabie', Ibraham, Ibrahum, Ibrahim, even if the JA, 18 (1921), pp. 5-36; Runciman, Steven, Byzantine Civilisation (London, 1966); Ryckmans, medial alif"returns for the plurals, Barahim Jacques, La persecution des chretiens himyarites au Barahima). The Qur'an would seem and sixieme siecle (Leiden, 1956); Salim, Sayyid 'Abd al-'AzIz, Ta'rikh al-Arabf 'asr al-jdhiliyya (Beirut, to be the most ancient source for the form 1971); al-Sandubl, Hasan, Sharh Dvwdn Imru' al- Ibrahim (Cheikho, 1/229-230). At the Qays (Cairo, n.d.); Sedillot, L. A., Tdrlkh al-Arab same time, the forms Braham (possibly al-'dmm, Arabic trans. 'Adil Zu'aytir (Cairo, recorded by Ibn Hisham) and Braham b. 1969); Smith, Sidney, 'Events in Arabia in the Bunaj, found in Safaitic inscriptions of the 6th Century A.D', BSOAS, 16, 3 (1954), pp. 425-468; al-Suhayll, 'Abd al-Rahman, al-Rawd 1st century BCE to the 4th century CE al-unuf ed. 'Abd al-Rahman al-Wakil (Cairo, (Jeffery, 45), can also be compared with 1967-1970); al-SuyuH, 'Abd al-Rahman, alDurr al-manthur (Qumm, 1404/1983); al-Taban, other variants of Abraham. As regards the meaning of Abram, Ta'rikh; idem, Jdmi'al-baydn (Bulaq, 1329/1911); Taql-zadah, Sayyid Hasan, TdrTkh-i Arabistdn the first element is undoubtedly the comwa qawm-i Arab, vol. 5 (Tehran, 1329-1330 mon Semitic for 'father'. The second part Sh./1960-1961); Wahb b. Munabbih, al-Tijdn ft muluk Himyar (Sana'a, 1979); al-Zamakhsharl, may be derived from the Akkadian ra'amu meaning 'to love', or from the West SeJar Allah, al-Kashshdf (Beirut, n.d.). mitic R-W-M meaning 'to be high'. By means of this analogy it is possible to say KAZEM BARGNISI TR. MARYAM REZAEE that Abram meant 'exalted with supreme