The idea had taken such hold of the Syrian army that Amru said he was thankful that Dzul Kelâa (the great Himyarite hero who fell fighting on Muâvia’s side) was slain before Ammâr’s death, as otherwise it might have staggered his constancy to the Syrian cause.
The saying itself, and the occasion on which Mahomet gave utterance to it, assume such importance from their bearing on the great dynastic controversy, that the Secretary of Wâckidy devotes several pages to the multitudinous traditions on the subject. The Alyites hold point-blank that ‘the truth must have been with Ammâr, and that it accompanied him on whichever side he fought.’ (Kâtíb Wâckidi, fol. 228–230.)
Mahomet is said, also, to have foretold to Ammâr that his last drink would be milk mingled with water; rather a safe prophecy, seeing that it was Ammâr’s favourite beverage.
[537] Abu Mûsa had kept aloof from the battle, but must have been in the neighbourhood. When told of the arbitration, he exclaimed, ‘The Lord be praised, Who hath stayed the fighting!’ ‘But thou art appointed Arbiter on our side.’ ‘Alas! alas!’ he cried; and so, in much trepidation, he repaired to Aly’s camp. Ahnaf ibn Cays asked to be appointed joint-Umpire with Abu Mûsa, who, he said, was not the man to stand alone, nor had he tact and wit enough for the task;—‘There is not a knot which Abu Mûsa can tie, but I will unloose the same; nor a knot he can unloose, but I will find another still harder to unravel.’ This was too true; but the army was in an insolent and perverse mood, and would have none but Abu Mûsa.
[538] An angry passage is given as occurring between Amru and Aly, but it reads like an Abbasside invention. When Amru objected to Aly being named ‘Caliph,’ or ‘Commander of the Faithful,’ in the deed, Aly recalled to those around him the similar occurrence at Hodeibia. He said that when he himself, on that occasion, was reducing the truce to writing, the Coreish objected to Mahomet being styled in it The Prophet of the Lord. ‘Well do I remember,’ continued Aly, ‘when the Prophet desired me, at their bidding, to erase the words; and then, when I hesitated, he blotted them out with his own hand, and said to me, “The day will come when thou, too, shalt be called on to make a like concession, and thou shalt agree thereto.” ‘Out upon thee!’ cried Amru; ‘dost thou liken us unto the Pagan Arabs, being good believers?’ ‘And when,’ said Aly, answering indirectly, ‘shall the Wicked not have a head, nor the Faithful an enemy?’ Whereupon Amru swore that he never would sit in company with Aly again; and Aly, on his part, expressed a similar determination. This conversation may possibly have had some foundation in fact, but it is abundantly coloured by Abbasside imagination. For the scene at Hodeibia, see Life of Mahomet, p. 372.
[539] Some make the interval arranged for to have been eight months. The ordinary term named by tradition is to Ramadhân or February (A.D. 658), which was seven or eight months from the date of the truce; others name Shabân, or January, making the interval six; and this is the commonly received account.
[540] The Persian Tabari gives the slain on both sides from first to last at 40,000, out of a total force of 130,000 men. Making every allowance for exaggeration, the carnage must have been great. The names of only a few ‘Companions’ are given; but now these were rapidly disappearing from the scene, as the period of a whole generation had elapsed since the Hegira. The chief fighting, moreover, was between the Bedouins; those from the north, as a rule, being on Aly’s side, and the Arabs of the south on that of Muâvia. The numbers from Mecca and Medîna were comparatively small. The prisoners taken on both sides were released. Amru is spoken of as having advised to put them to death, but this is altogether unlikely.
[541] See above, p. 226.
[542] Hence the seceders are sometimes called Harôrites.
[543] Dûma, to the extreme north of the peninsula, lies half-way between Irâc and Syria, thus fulfilling the conditions of the truce. Some place the scene at Adzroh.