Ancient Genealogies and Traditions

Dr. Khursheed Rizvi

Although the ancient historical and genealogical traditions of the Arabs are often criticized from the standpoint of modern research, these traditions are an inseparable part of their literary and social background; therefore, acquaintance with them is extremely necessary. According to these traditions, the basic division of the Arabs is as follows:¹

Arab Baidah² Arab Baqiyah Arab Aribah Arab Mustarabah

Arab Baidah refers to those ancient tribes that became completely extinct and of whom only stories remain. Among them, the foremost are ‘Ad, Thamud, Tasm, and Jadis. In addition to these, several other tribes—such as Amaliq (or Amaliqah), Umaym, Abil, Ahl-Wabar, Ahl-Madyan, and Jurhum (the first group)—are also counted among the Arab Baidah.

In contrast to the Baidah are the Arab Baqiyah,³ that is, those tribes that survived and whose lineage did not come to an end. As is evident from the table, they are of two kinds: Aribah and Mustarabah.

Arab Aribah refers to the Arabs of southern Arabia, that is, the people of Yemen. In relation to their common ancestor “Qahtan”, they are also called “Qahtani.”

Arab Mustarabah refers to the Arabs of northern Arabia. They are the descendants of ‘Adnan and are therefore called “‘Adnani.”

Some essential details regarding each of these groups are presented below.

ARAB BAIDAH

The people of ‘Ad were the nation of Prophet Hud (PBUH), whose story is repeatedly mentioned in the Quran as a lesson.⁴ Their dwelling place was the land of Ahqaf, after which the forty-sixth surah of the Quran is named.⁵ From the study of the Quranic verses, the picture that emerges of these people is that they were extraordinarily large in stature and immensely strong. Whenever they seized someone, they did so with great severity. This power produced in them an unjustified arrogance, and they used to say: “مَن ُّْاَشَد مِنَّا ًْقُوَّة” (“Who is stronger than we?”).

They were prosperous and highly civilized. They possessed great skill in architecture. Consequently, they not only constructed magnificent palaces and fortresses but also made it their pastime to build monumental structures in mountain passes or on elevated mounds merely for recreation or amusement. Despite the persistent preaching and admonition of Prophet Hud (PBUH), they paid no heed to the message of guidance and refused to abandon their ancestral deities. Moreover, they adopted an attitude of denial and arrogance.

As a result, a humiliating punishment descended upon them which utterly destroyed them, and none survived except Hud (PBUH) and his companions. This punishment came in the form of an exceedingly fierce wind, which the Quran describes as “rihun sarsarun” (a furious wind), “al-rih al-aqim” (a barren, unproductive wind), and “rihun fiha azabun alimun” (a wind containing a painful punishment). This wind was imposed upon them for seven nights and eight days and struck them down like the hollow trunks of fallen date palms.⁶ Its force was such that it shattered everything; whatever it approached became lifeless like decayed bones. In short, nothing remained of the people of ‘Ad except their empty dwellings.

Ibn al-Athir narrates the following report regarding the destruction of ‘Ad: when they denied Prophet Hud (PBUH), a severe drought was imposed upon them. Eventually they sent a delegation of their leading men to Makkah to pray for rain. As a result of their supplication, three clouds appeared: one white, one red, and one black. Then a voice called out:

“O Qil!⁷ Choose for yourself and for your people.”

Qil chose the black cloud, thinking that it contained the greatest amount of water. At this, a voice from the unseen proclaimed:

اخترت رمادًا رمددًا . لا تبقى من عاد احدًا . لا والدا تترك ولا ولدا . الا جعلته بمدا.

You have chosen a dusty ash that will spare none of ‘Ad—neither father nor son; it will render all of them lifeless.

Thereafter, by God’s command, the black cloud moved toward the people of Ad, and from it emerged the violent wind that destroyed the disobedient among them.⁸

The links of Ibn al-Athir’s report appear to correspond with the following verse of the Quran:

فَلَمَّا رَأَوْهُ عَارِضًا مُّسْتَقْبِلَ أَوْدِيَتِهِمْ قَالُوْا هَذَا عَارِضٌ مُمْطِرُنَا بَلْ هُوَ مَا اسْتَعْجَلْتُمْ بِهِ رِيْحٌ فِيْهَا عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ.

So when they saw it as a cloud approaching their valleys, they said: ‘This is a cloud that will bring us rain.’ (No!) Rather, it is that which you had been asking to be hastened—a wind containing a painful punishment.⁹

From the Quranic verse “wa annahu ahlaka ada nil ula”,¹⁰ some people have also inferred that alongside “‘Ad al-Ula” (the earlier ‘Ad), there must have been another people called “Ad al-Thaniyah,” “Ad al-Akhirah,” or “Ad al-Ukhra.” One conjecture is that “Ad al-Ukhra” arose from the descendants of the believers who were saved from the people of Ad.¹¹

Al-Mubarrad has concluded from the above verse that “‘Ad al-Ula” refers to the people of Prophet Hud (PBUH), while “‘Ad al-Akhirah” refers to the people of Prophet Salih (PBUH), that is, the people of Thamud.¹²

According to another report, Ad al-Thaniyah settled in the region of Saba in Yemen, and the construction of the sadi marib¹³ was carried out by their king Luqman bin Ad Dhu al-Nusur.¹⁴

THAMUD

The dwelling place of the people of Thamud is described as the region of “Wadi al-Qura,” which formed part of the north-western area of the Arabian Peninsula.¹⁵ Their capital was the place called “Hijr,” located on the ancient highway leading from the Hijaz to Syria, and which is now commonly known as “Madain Salih.”¹⁶

According to Sahih al-Bukhari¹⁷ and certain other sources, the Prophet (PBUH), while proceeding to Tabuk, passed through the place of “Hijr.” On that occasion he said:

لا تدخلوا مساكن الذين ظلموا انفسهم الا ان تكونوا باكين ان يصيبكم ما اصابهم

Do not enter the dwellings of those who wronged themselves unless you do so weeping, lest the affliction that befell them should also befall you.

The fifteenth surah of the Quran itself bears the name “Al-Hijr”, because in it the people of Hijr are mentioned as follows:

وَ لَقَدۡ کَذَّبَ اَصۡحٰبُ الۡحِجۡرِ الۡمُرۡسَلِیۡنَ ﴿ۙ۸۰﴾ وَ اٰتَیۡنٰہُمۡ اٰیٰتِنَا فَکَانُوۡا عَنۡہَا مُعۡرِضِیۡنَ ﴿ۙ۸۱﴾ وَ کَانُوۡا یَنۡحِتُوۡنَ مِنَ الۡجِبَالِ بُیُوۡتًا اٰمِنِیۡنَ ﴿۸۲﴾ فَاَخَذَتۡہُمُ الصَّیۡحَۃُ مُصۡبِحِیۡنَ ﴿ۙ۸۳﴾ فَمَاۤ اَغۡنٰی عَنۡہُمۡ مَّا کَانُوۡا یَکۡسِبُوۡنَ ﴿ؕ۸۴﴾

Indeed, the people of Hijr denied the messengers. And We granted them Our signs, yet they turned away from them. They used to carve dwellings in the mountains in security. Then the mighty blast seized them at morning. So that which they used to earn availed them nothing.¹⁸

The majority of Muslim scholars have traditionally interpreted “ashab al-hijr” in these verses as referring to the people of Thamud, and the indication of the above-mentioned hadith has likewise been taken to refer to the dwellings of Thamud. However, Sayyid Sulayman Nadwi has expressed hesitation in accepting this interpretation for certain reasons. The essence of his investigation, in brief, is that the Quran mentions the people of Thamud in twenty-six places, yet nowhere are they explicitly called “ashab al-hijr.” Conversely, in this verse the term “ashab al-hijr” appears without mentioning Thamud by name. Similarly, in most narrations of the aforementioned hadith the name of Thamud does not occur, and in the one narration in which the words “ard thamud” are used for Hijr, it may be interpreted as meaning that Hijr was once part of the territory of Thamud. Sayyid Nadwi’s personal view is that “ashab al-hijr” refers instead to the Nabataean people (qawn anbat).¹⁹

Wherever the Quran mentions Thamud with clarity and detail,²⁰ the following picture of this people emerges.

After the people of Ad, they rose to prominence. They too were prosperous. They possessed springs, gardens, flourishing palm groves, and cultivated fields. Like the people of Ad, they also had remarkable expertise in architecture. They built palaces in the plains and skillfully carved dwellings in the mountains with great craftsmanship and dexterity. Prophet Salih (PBUH) was sent to them. He exerted great effort in admonition and preaching and reminded them of the blessings God had bestowed upon them. Nevertheless, they remained doubtful about the path of truth and persisted in their attachment to their ancestral deities, and—like other unfortunate nations—denied the prophet.

They demanded a miracle from Prophet Salih (PBUH), whereupon, by God’s command, a she-camel was manifested as a sign.²¹ This became a test for them. Prophet Salih instructed them to respect the sanctity of this she-camel and to observe its appointed turn for drinking water: its turn was fixed for one day and their turn for another. They were told to allow it to graze freely and not to harm it in any way, lest punishment descend upon them.

Only a few among the weak and oppressed people believed in the message of Prophet Salih (PBUH). The arrogant chiefs openly rejected him. They declared the prophet and his followers to be an omen of misfortune. In the city there were nine men who were exceedingly corrupt. They swore mutual oaths that together they would launch a night attack upon Prophet Salih (PBUH) and his followers, kill them, and then deny their crime. But their scheme was frustrated by God’s decree. Eventually their entire community was destroyed, and their dwellings were left desolate as a consequence of their wrongdoing.

The form of the punishment was as follows: they refused to honor the sanctity of the she-camel and, disregarding all the warnings and admonitions of the prophet, persisted in rebellion. They incited the most wretched man among them,²² who rose and hamstrung the she-camel. Thereafter they said to Prophet Salih (PBUH): “If you are truly a messenger, then bring upon us the punishment with which you have been threatening us.” He replied: “Enjoy yourselves in your homes for three days; this is a promise that will not be belied.” Accordingly, after three days the punishment arrived, and they were seized with remorse for their deeds.

The Quran describes this punishment in various terms: “sayhah” (“a mighty blast”), “sayhatan wahidatan” (“a single overwhelming cry”), “al-saiqah” (“a thunderbolt from the sky”), “saiqah al-adhab al-huni” (“the thunderbolt of a humiliating punishment”), “al-taghiyah” (“an overwhelming blast”), and “al-rajfah” (“an earthquake”).²³ This punishment utterly destroyed them, and they lay prostrate in their homes as though they had never inhabited them.

Prophet Salih (PBUH) departed in sorrow. God protected him and his companions from the punishment. The surviving remnants of Thamud are sometimes referred to as “Thamud al-Thaniyah.”²⁴ Moreover, among the destroyed peoples mentioned in the Quran is “ashab al-rass.”²⁵ Some commentators are of the opinion that these too were remnants of the people of Thamud.²⁶

The mention of Thamud also appears in ancient Assyrian, Roman, and Greek historical sources,²⁷ the details of which fall outside the scope of our present discussion. However, a related issue warrants brief consideration:

Some ancient monuments carved into the mountains of Madain Salih still exist, and Muslims have traditionally regarded them as structures created by the Thamud.²⁸ Ibn Battuta also mentions these structures in his travelogue in the same capacity.²⁹ Some inscriptions are engraved on these edifices. The well-known British traveler Charles Montague Doughty (1843–1926) visited the site in 1876 as part of a Hajj caravan and stayed among the Bedouins for an extended period. His primary objective was to conduct research on these structures. He sent copies of the inscriptions to the eminent French scholar Ernest Renan (1823–1892), who translated them into French and concluded that these structures were predominantly Nabataean tombs, bearing dates corresponding to the beginning of the Christian era; thus, they were unrelated to the Thamud. When Doughty’s renowned work Travels in Arabia Deserta was published in 1888, these inscriptions, along with Renan’s translations, were included. From that point, some Orientalists began to propagate the idea that this modern discovery undermined the Quranic account, arguing that, firstly, the structures were Nabataean rather than Thamudic, and secondly, that they were tombs rather than dwellings. While a detailed discussion on this matter constitutes a separate line of research, a few important points can be summarized here:

(1) The first and most important point is that the question of whether these particular structures are Thamudic or Nabataean dwellings or tombs has no bearing upon any explicit statement of the Qur’an, nor does any doctrine of the Qur’an depend upon it. The Qur’anic statement is limited to the fact that the people of Thamud had attained great proficiency in carving houses out of mountains. Nowhere does it explicitly state that any specific extant structure was carved by the Thamud. Consequently, even if these monuments are remnants of the Nabataeans, they would not conflict with any Qur’anic text. It is on this basis that Syed Sulaiman Nadwi, as mentioned above, adopted the view that these remains in fact belong to the Nabataeans and that the term “Aṣḥab al-Ḥijr” refers to them. In short, the Qur’an has no fundamental concern with this debate.

(2) Strictly speaking, the issue may be considered resolved at this point; nevertheless, from a scholarly perspective, a few additional aspects may be examined. The Quran employs the word “buyut” for the structures carved by the Thamud. It is on the basis of this word that the debate regarding “dwellings” or “tombs” is raised. It should be noted that the word bayt allows for a considerable range of meanings. Besides “tent” or “house,” it may also denote a “room,” “chamber,” “cell,” or simply a “building,” whether residential or non-residential. In the Qur’anic verse “ْ فِي بُيُوتٍ أَذِنَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تُرْفَعَ وَ يُذْكَرَ فِيهَا اسْمُه”³⁰, the word “buyut” refers to mosques. Likewise, in “al-Bayt” and “Bayt al-Maqdis,” the word bayt signifies a place of worship, whereas in “Bayt al-Mal” it refers to a general building. By the same reasoning, the inscriptions deciphered by Renan are not, without exception, related to tombs. The very first inscription refers to “mesgeda,” which denotes a masjid—that is, a place of worship.³¹

Furthermore, a people capable of carving tombs out of mountains would not necessarily be prevented from constructing houses in the same manner. Indeed, a natural reaction upon observing the tombs of a people is to search for their dwellings in the surrounding area, since the existence of the dead presupposes the prior existence of the living, and the presence of dwellings must logically precede the construction of tombs. One is naturally led to ask: how did the people to whom these tombs belonged live?

In this regard, the Qur’anic verse “”تَتَّخِذُونَ مِنْ سُهُولِهَا قُصُورًا وَ تَنْحِتُونَ الْجِبَالَ بُيُوتًا“” ³² provides a suggestive comparison between plains and mountains (suhul wa jibal) and between palaces and houses (qusur wa buyut). One may therefore consider the possibility that the residential buildings, which once stood on the level ground at the foot of the mountains, were destroyed over time, leaving only the stone-carved remains within the mountains. It is entirely possible that these surviving rock-cut structures were not originally intended for residential purposes. The possibility that burials might have taken place within houses themselves also deserves consideration.

(3) Reference has already been made above to the letter written by Sir Henry Rawlinson to Charles Doughty, in which certain conjectures were proposed regarding the distinction between “Nabataean Hijr” and “Thamudic Hijr.” The relevant passage reads:

“Hejra, in Ptolemy, is a town of Thamud; yet Medain Salih, we understand by the epitaphs, to have been of the Nabateans! M. Salih is Hijr (Hejr) But what is Hijr? El-Hejr, in the tradition of the country Beduins and the Alowna, is all that valley plain and valley ground… lying between the Mezham and el-Ally (el’-Ola), and as far as Bir el-Ghrannem. Now el-Khreyby…. is likewise el-Hejr: the Khreyby we have seen is Himyaric, or of the people from the south; M. Salih is of the northern civil world. We might thus conjecture that el-Khreyby is Hejra of Thamud, and that Medain Salih, 10 miles to the N., is the Nabatean Hejra.”³³

In parallel, Ptolemy’s map of Arabia, reconstructed by Sprenger,³⁴ lists Egra (Hijr) with two separate names: Thamydeni and Napataei, corroborating Rawlinson’s conjecture of a distinction between Thamudic and Nabataean Hijr.³⁵ Since the two locations are only ten miles apart, some confusion is understandable. Thus, the question arises as to which of these sites is meant in the Quran and Hadith by “Hijr” or “the land of Thamud.”

(4) The scholarly and archaeological study of the relevant sites in Madain Salih cannot yet be considered complete, as some researchers do not concur with the conclusions derived from the efforts of Doughty and Renan. Syed Abul Ala Maududi expressed in two letters to the author³⁶ that it is entirely possible that the Nabataeans inscribed the monuments at a later period over the earlier Thamudic structures, which they used as tombs. He also offered observations on the language, script, and architectural style of these inscriptions, which we do not elaborate here. Maududi’s definitive position is that the monuments are indeed Thamudic because the Nabataean structures in Petra, by comparison, are far more advanced architecturally than those at Madain Salih, clearly demonstrating a substantial chronological gap, indicating that the structures belong to two distinct peoples.³⁷ Notably, it is also possible that the inscriptions were not contemporaneous with the buildings themselves—a question that modern scientific methods could help resolve.

(5) The possibility of misreading the ancient inscriptions cannot be dismissed. For example, Dr. Rana Ihsanullah holds the view that where the original inscriptions contained the word qusr (“palace”), it was mistakenly read as qabr (“grave”), because in the Thamudic script the letters s and b are only minimally differentiated.³⁸ If this is the case, it becomes necessary to address and resolve such ambiguities.

(6) Dr. Rana Ihsanullah, who personally visited Madain Salih to study this issue, also observed that³⁹ on the interior side of every doorway there were four small square holes, two on each side, about two inches each. These clearly indicate that after closing the door, a wooden peg or bar would be inserted into the holes to secure it from the inside. This demonstrates that the doors were designed to be fastened from within, consistent with residential use rather than tombs. From this perspective, it is important to investigate whether these structures were originally intended as tombs or for some other purpose.

Further research on the Thamud, following the work of Doughty and Renan, should also be considered. For instance, an encyclopedia published in 1959 states:

“In the last few years, altogether some 13,000 of these Thamudic rock writings and pictures were discovered widely scattered over different regions in Central Arabia, dating from about the fourth century B.C. to the early seventh century of our era. While the greater part still awaits publication, those that have been deciphered are sufficient to reveal a quite clear picture of the surprisingly high civilization of their authors.”⁴⁰

In short, from a purely scholarly perspective, many questions remain unresolved in this research. As noted at the outset, in terms of the Quran, these details are not fundamentally relevant.

TASM AND JUDAIS

The Quran does not mention Tasm or Judais. According to ancient Arab traditions, these two tribes were settled in Yamama, with authority resting with Tasm. When governance reached a tyrannical and impious ruler named Amalq (or Amaloq), he inflicted severe oppression on the Judais tribe. At one point, in anger at the frank speech of a Judais woman named Hazila, he instituted the cruel custom that any Judais girl upon marriage would first be brought to her husband’s chamber before going to him. This reprehensible practice continued until a young woman named ‘Ufirah, sister of a prominent Judais figure, Al-Aswad, protested against it, arousing intense zeal among her people. In consultation, they resolved to hold a feast in honor of the king and, during the event, suddenly attacked, annihilating the elite of the kingdom. Subsequently, the remaining survivors were also killed selectively.

Those few who survived sought refuge with Hassan ibn Taba’ al-Himyari, the king of Yemen, petitioning him for justice. He responded and proceeded with a retaliatory campaign. Along the way, a man of Tasm, Rabah ibn

Marrah, informed Hassan that his sister, Hazam,⁴¹ had married into the Judais tribe and possessed exceptionally keen eyesight, capable of spotting a mounted rider from thirty miles away. Fearing she would alert them prematurely, he advised that each man should carry a tree in hand⁴² and advance under its cover. The strategy was implemented, and Hazam observed the scene, warning, “O Judais! Trees are coming toward you.”⁴³ Her warning was ignored, and despite repeating it several times, the people remained oblivious. Hassan ultimately arrived and executed all, sparing only the leader Al-Aswad, who fled but was killed near the mountains of ‘Aja and Salma by members of the Tasm tribe, intimidated by his exceptional stature. In this manner, both tribes were wiped from existence.

Similarly long narratives exist for other tribes, which bear the mark of legend rather than strict history. These accounts often include dialogues, formal or poetic expressions, and embellished storytelling, clearly showing that they are not contemporaneous with the vanished tribes themselves but were transmitted orally and later cast into literary forms. From this perspective, such traditions are not historical documents in the strict sense but constitute an important literary heritage, reflecting the allegorical and narrative artistry of ancient Arabs.

[To be continued….]