Version classiqueVersion mobile

The rules of Barat. Tribal documents from Yemen

 | 
Paul Dresch

Part 3. Texts and translations

Agreement among Dhū Muḥammad, al-Ma‘āṭirah and Dhū ‘Amr (text B, AH 1211/AD 1796)

قاعدة الملازم بين ذو محمد والمعاطرة وذو عمر

Texte intégral

Text B (AH 1211/AD 1796), photocopy: Agreement among Dhū Muḥammad, al-Maʿāṭirah and Dhū ʿAmr
فاعدة الملازم بين ذو محمد و المعاطرة و ذو عمر

Text B (AH 1211/AD 1796), photocopy: Agreement among Dhū Muḥammad, al-Maʿāṭirah and Dhū ʿAmrفاعدة الملازم بين ذو محمد و المعاطرة و ذو عمر

Qawāʿid al-Malāzim Text B (1211 hijrī) in Arabic

1بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

2الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على مَن لا نبِىُ بعده سيّدنا محمد صلى الله عليه وسلك وبعد

3(1)
قد حضروا رجال ذو محمد وآل محمد المعاطرة وذو عَمْر وتواجبوا على رضاء الله وتواجبوا على إقامة عادة آبائهم وأجدادهم وعلى صحّتها وصحّة قواعدهم وأخوتهم وملازمهم وضمنائها وإنّما قد حصل فيها مِن الخُرَقَات أعني العَثَرات مِن هذا التاريخ وأول فإنه ما عاد بعد بينهم الى وجيه الضمناء وأنّها قامت أعرافهم وملازمهم ثرا وثريّا وكان ما ذُكَر تجديدها وصحًتها مِن هذا التاريخ وآخر وكانت هذه عادة أب وجَدّ وفِرق لِمَن حصل بينه وبين صاحبه لُوَا فهذا فِرْق له وهي ثلاث قواعد متناظرة اللفظة باللفظة

4(2)
أول شئ فِعْل المرأة ما فيه سِنَّة إلا اذا به أفعال في الرجال إلا اذا اعتذر فاعل الشَوْفة أنّها غاربة فعنده دَيْن العَمْد على العرف ايمان اثنين وعشرين جَذّ وإن هاب مِن دَيْن العمد سَرَّح المَرْبوع ومَضَت له السِنَّة واذا مَضَى في العمد فسرّح ومِثله ذَمّ مع تسروح بعير سباعي وسباعية وهو غالي التشويف

5(3)
ومَن فَعَل في المُرْغَل ولو قد هو كامل فلا له سِنَّة إلا يَخْرج بالايمان في العمد ويُدعَى شروع المرغل فإنه قُتَل فشرعه مائة سِنّ مشروع المرغل وبعير سباعي وسباعية والسباعية هي فُوْطة نصايف سبع مذارع مسبّغ هذا في الرُغلة وإنه كوَّن في المرغل فكان تقدير ما بين كَوْن وقتْل في الرُغلة والدم باقي على حُكْمه لا هله غير ما ذُكَر واذا خرج في العمد ايمان اثنين وعشرين جَذّ فيسقط ثلاثة ارباع الرُغلة ويستقيم ربع مع تسروح البعير السباعي والسباعية واذا اقتتلوا مرغليين فعلا ما قد وُثَر اعلاه

6(4)
واذا اقتتلوا اثنين غير مُرْغلين ويقع في أيهما شَوْفة أعني بذلك فِعل الوجه مع الاذان او في السَلَبَة او في الكَعْب فإن كان وخرج الفاعل في العمد فيسوق سترها على شروع التشويف ويُقَدِّر التشويف ما بين الذكر والانثى بشرعه مع تسروح البعير السباعي والسباعية وإن ما خرج في العمد فكان ماله سِنَّة ولا صاحب ولا عُلقة

7(5)
وكان جار الطُلَق بين اهل الملازم له ثَنُو اربع أيام لبَدَوِي وهَجَرِي وصنعاء وأبو عريش والمغرب ثمانية أيام ومولا تهامة واليمن خمسة عشر يوماً ومِن بعد هذه المِدة صَحّت في وجه الجار والجار هو اللزيم ومَن عيّب صاحبه في سِنَّته او مَلْزَمه عَيْب قَصْد فكان ما له صاحب ولا سِنَّة ولا مَلْزَم في وجيه الضمناء

8(6)
ورفيق الجَنْب هو المساير لرفيقه ولا عُلقة إلا ما عَلَّقه (ما علقت) مِن جميع العُلَق ورفيق القفا الذي بظاهره فما له إجازة والسِيَار الذي بظاهرة لا سِيَار له وكان (ما) باقي بين اهل الملازم في رفيق القفا وقطير الاجرة والظواهر ومَلْزَم ولا سِنَّة ولا عُلقة وكان مَن عيّب سيّر الجنب وجار البيت أعنى القطير او جار المسمار فكان ماله صُحْبَة ولا سِنَّة في وجيه الضمناء

9(7)
وكان جار البيت مَن هو حال بيته او غنمه على شروع القبايل وكانت النقيلة ما لها إجازة والنقيلة هي مَن أخذ دراهم على قِطار او سِيار فلا تصحّ بعد هذا وكان مَن عنده نقص لذو محمد وآل محمد وذو عَمْر اهل الملازم قَتْل مشتهر فإن لَثَغ ودا الى بيعه اعني قطيره او سيّره كان الرَباع له وإن ما لَثَغ الوِدا (الودادة) كان ما له رَباع ولا إجارة

10(8)
وكان عُروق اللحم والدم مِن ارباع القُبل كُلّمَن يثور على لحمته لا خميس يثور على خميس آخر وأما بين اهل الملازم المذكورين فاللزم لعروق اللحم والدم في بينهم كُلّمَن يثور على لحمته على ما ذُكَر في عروق اللحم والدم

11(9)
واذا تسايروا اثنين او اكثر بدون أنّ كلهم يُعَلّق عُلقته على صاحبه وجرا على أحدهم جاري فلا لزوم على السيّر أن يثور إلا يقافي سيّره وقته

12(10)
وكان مَجَامع ذو محمد وآل محمد وذو عَمْر اهل الملازم الذي تَجَمَّع اهل الملازم في لحميتن وطالع واذا أحد اللحمتين فتح فتنة في أحد المجامع كان ما له سِنَّة ولا عُلقه في المَجَامع إلا رفيقه يوصّله بيته وبعد ما يوصّله بيته فما له مَلْزَم ولا عُلقه في مجامع ذو محمد مشرق ومغرب ومَوكَب العِنَان بل يَبقَى في بيته حتى يُسرّح عَتْب ضمناء القواعد أما عتب قَتْل او عتب حَشْم أعني فِعّل ويوم يقع مَجْمَع فلا مَلْزَم ولا عُلقة إلا رفيقه يوصّله بيته لا غير إلا اذا سَرَّح ما لَزَمَه مِن الغالي أعني عتب اهل القاعدة مع الاستار فتَمْضي له العُلقة والسِنَّة

13(11)
وكان دكّاتهم على سوقهم وطرقاته واحدة وشَوْفتهم واحدة مِن عَظْمهم وخارج واذا وقع دكّة شوقهم او الشَوفة وأحدهم عنده لأحد اهل الملازم دم فله رفيقه الى بيته ولو مُعَيِّب قبايله

14(12)
وكان يوم أي اهل الملازم يَطلب صاحبه عًتْب كان يطلبه بيضاء وخِيار على أنظار اهل الملازم وكان للمطلوب خمسة عشر يوماً أن ارتد على البيضاء في قواعدهم وأعرافهم وإلا شَتَم صاحبه في بيته وعند اهله وكان في وجيه الضمناء ما أي اهل الملازم يشتم صاحبه في السوق واذا أحدهم شَتَم صاحبه في السوق فقد عيّب الضمناء ضمناء القاعدة وعيّب ضمناء السوق ويَلْزَمه تسروح وَضْع الجِذْن لصاجبه في السوق بالمُحَدَّش ناصفة لضمناء قواعد السوق مِن اهل الشهر الذي وُضَع فيه الملام وناصفة للمشتوم وما هو لاهل القاعدة مِن العتب والمَلْزَم فهو لهم على شروعهم غير ما ذُكَر

15(13)
واذا أحد اهل الملازم نجّد عند صاحبه عتب أما ضمان او صُلْح وإلا زاد بَطْن مِن المُطَالَب او جماعته على شروع اهل الملازم او ما يعتب أما بقاعدة وإلا بشهود ويمضّوها اهل الملازم فإن حشم وساق النقاء كان السِنَّة له والعُلقة وإن ما حشم ولا ساق النقاء فكان ما له سِنَّة ولا عُلقة وإن ما أنجد لا قاعدة ولا شهود كان عنده ايمان النقاء اثنين وعشرين أنّ فَعَل على مَحْض النقاء وإن تَنَقّى وحصل شهود كان دَيْنه على ما تنقّى مِن الشهادة وإن كان ووصّل اهل الملازم بسِنَّة وعُلقة لزم الجار يستقيم مصان وكان الجار كفيل بين اهل الملازم وكان اللزيم على ر أي مُلزَّمه ويوم يَخْرج مِن رأي مُلزِّمه فما له بيضاء وعيّب ضمناء القواعد عَيْب قَصْد وكان اللزيم ثقَة مَلْزَمه في شروع اهل الملازم

16(14)
وكان اذا وقع رماية على أحد اهل الملازم وهو في صُلْح او عُلقه ولا يصطاب ففي البندق المخطية ربع دية ما بين لزيم ومُلَزَّمه واذا كان في غير سِنَّة ولا عُلقة ففي البندق المخطية مائة وعشرة في وجيه ضمناء القواعد فإن ساق الفاعل وإلا فلا له سِنَّة إلا اذا طلب المطلوب في أعراف اهل الملازم بالصواب ولا ارتد(للصواب) بعد إعراض عليه بظاهرة في السوق وبعد ما يرما ويسْلَم فلا في سَلامة غَرَامة مع مَنْعه مِن الصواب على شروع اهل الملازم

17(15)
والشيخ المُحَكَّم هو ثقة مَحْضَره بين الغرماء وفيما وقع فيه والضمناء للشيخ على رأيه على أعراف اهل الملازم وإن دعاهم جابوه وإن تكافا عنهم فله ذلك ولا حقّ على الضمين بدون داعي شيخ او غريم وكان قيمة الجِذْن الغَرْب مائة ريال وعشرة ريال على شروع اهل الملازم في وجيه ضمناء القواعد

18(16)
وكان السوق وطرقاته آمنة حسب قواعدهم وحسب قواعد السوق ومَن فعل فيها شيء فلا له سِنَّة ولا صاحب إلا اذا سرّح المحدّش فيما وقع في السوق أيام سوقه ولياليه حسب قواعده والمحدّش في يوم السوق وكان طرقات السوق آمنه جميع الجهات الاربع لجلاب المنفعة واذا اعتدوا ذو حسين في أحد الطرقات وهي مِن الشَعْفة حقّ أَسْحَر وقِبلة وطريق الجوف مِن الفَرَح وغرب كان عليهم ما في قواعد السوق

19(17)
وكان اذا أحد اهل الملازم جَلّ صاحبه مِن القَرشة حقّ اهل الملازم فقد عيّب الضمناء ولا له صُحْبَة والجَلّ بين اهل الملازم بالمربوع بكَثر او قِلّ وكان مَن اعتدى على قارشة مِن اهل الملازم وعقرها في غير مَحْجَر او في مَحْجَر في أيام حِجْرَته كان عليه تسليم غالي العقير قيمة السَلَبَة وهو ربع الثمن فوق العَدل وإلا ثمن العدل وإن لم يسرّح فلا سِنَّة ولا عُلقة

20(18)
وكان اذا أحد اهل الملازم مَدّ في جار مجوّر مِن لحمة او لحمتين او اكثر فلا لجيرانه مثار إلا بعد أن يعجز الجار الذي الفاعل مِن لحمته فاذا عجز الجار كان المثار على الفاعل مِن أي لحمة مِن اهل الملازم

21(19)
ومَن كان له نقص دم عند أحد مِن اهل الملازم وتَحَجَّبه ملازمه عند الاخماس كان الاقطار بدوي وهجري على شروع اهل الملازم وطَرْد صاحبه في ذِمّه و(إن) صاحبه زاد احتمله فإن كان دوّر له كَوْن وزاد حصل فيه كَوْن فوق الكَوْن الاول فله سيّره ومَن طَرَد في قَتْل وزاد قَتْل فوق القَتْل الاول وقد مَضَت سِنَنه عند اهل الملازم فما له سِنَّة إلا سيَر الجنب ولم عاد له قِطار أما السيَار فهو له والسِيَار لازم في قَتْل وكَوْن

22(20)
وكان اذا طلب مولا الدم نقيصته سَوْق الدم دَسْم كان في وجه الجار يسوقه في ثلاثة احلال على شروع اهل الملازم واذا أحد طَرَد في كَوْن وزاد فيه قَتْل فالسِنَّة تَمْضي في قَتْل وكَوْن ومَن منع عن تسليم سَوْق الدم فلا له سِنَّة وكان مِن عنده لصاحبه قَتْل او كَوْن وطَرَد فيه فللمنقوص الى حدّ ثلاثة بنادق يرمى بها ويسير يخطئ وإلا يصيب واذا زاد على الثلاث البنادق فهي صَبَحَة ومَن صَبَح صاحبه فلا له سِنَّة ولا عُلقة ولا مَلْزم عند اهل الملازم وعيّب ضمناء القواعد إلا اذا سرّح غالي الصَبَحَة على شروع اهل الملازم مِن بقر وإبل وتشويف على أعرافهم الغصّابة

23(21)
واذا بذل أحد اهل الملازم دم صاحبه على شروعهم وغلب صاحب الدم أن يلتقي دمه فكانت السِنَّة والعُلْقة ماضية مع السيار وكان الجار يستقيم بين اهل الملازم ومَن عيّب صاحبه فما له في قبيلته صَيْحة إلا مِن العشرين ومنزل ويرما الى بيته او اين ما اصطاده وللمُعَيب الى حدّ ثلاثة بنادق يرمى بها ويسير يصيب وإلا يخطئ وما زاد عليها فتعدّ صَبَحَة ومَن عنده لصاحبه دم وقد نَجَحَت ملازمه فله رفيقه اذا حضر بلاد الدولة او أراد بلاد غيرها فله رفيقه وإنه خارج مِن بلاد الدولة فله رفيقه الى بيته

24(22)
ومَن ادا لصاحبه صُلْح وأخرخه مِن بيته فا بترى منه فله رفيقه الى بيته ومَن ادا لصاحبه صُلْح وابترَى منه فلا يصحّ البرا إلا اذا وصل الصَليح هذا بين اهل الملازم او ظاهره في السوق يوم السوق واذا وَقَع منه شئ قَبْل ظاهرة في السوق او قبل ايصال البرا الى صَليحه فهو عايب ولا له سِنَّة ولا صُحْبة وعيّب ضمناء القواعد

25(23)
ومَن تَعَتْب مِن ارباع القُبل في أحد اهل الملازم فكان يُدْعَى بيضاء وخيار في السوق وله خمسة عشر يوماً أن استقام وإلا شُتَم في السوق فاذا دخل السوق ونطح الملام فرفيقه له ويُوفي على شروع اهل الملازم وإن شُتَم كان القِطاع فيه برضاء وما يَنْقض القِطاع إلا رضاء في وجيه الضمناء وكان ما على ذَمّ اعتراض بين اهل الملازم وكان ذو محمد والمعاطرة وذو عَمْر ما أيهم يحمل مَلْزَم لذو حسين لا قِطَار ولا عُرْوَة الدم واللحم ولا غيره مِن ارباع القُبل ولا رفيق الجنب الماضى إلا كلّ منهم يثور على لحمته

26(24)
وكان اهل برط الحلال فيه من الجيران الذي ببيوت مِن دون الاغراب اذا حصل منهم فِعْل في أحد اهل الملازم فكان له شمس يومه رَفَق لا غير والقبيلي الذى ماله مَقرّه مِن الاغراب او مِن ارباع القُبل وحصل منه فِعْل في احد اهل الملازم كان ما له ازا ولا رفيق ومَن أزاه او رفقه عيّب الضمناء ضمناء القواعد وما له مَلْزَم

27(25)
وكذا جلاب المنفعة آمن الى السوق اذا كان ولا عنده نقايص لاهل الملازم أما دم او جَلّ او عتب او غير ذلك مِن النقايص ومَن عنده نقيصة فلا سَعْة له في بلادهم مِن ارباع القُبل إلا بِرَضَاء الجميع بعد ما يُصفى على شروع القبايل وكان مَن اراد أن يُصفى من ارباع القُبل في اهل الملازم فله رفيقه رفيق الجَنْب ومَن تعتّب في السوق وطرقاته فلا له سِيَار ولا زاد بطن ولا عُرْوَة دم ولحم وما جرا في السوق فهو عند الابيض مِن اهل السوق اهل الملازم على شروع القبايل وما فطروا به يُقَرَّر فيه فريضة على أعرافهم

28(26)
واذا أحد اهل الملازم دخل زَبْن صاحبه وسَرَق منه سَرِقة فلا له أخ ولا صاحب إلا قد سَرَّح النقيصة وغالي البيت على شروع القبايل فإن كان الزَبْن مُغْلَق فعلى الفاعل إستار البيت بقري وغنمى وإن كان بلا باب او بلا مفتاح فعليه نصف غالى البيت المغلق وناصفة تسقط مقابل تَرْك الزَبْن بلا مفتاح واذا أحد دخل زَبْن مِن زُبُون صاحبه ورماه من زَبْنه وهو بلا مفتاح او بلا باب فعليه رأٍس بقر وباقي الغالي يُنْحَط وإنه مغلق ببابه ومفتاحه وكسر الباب او خلع ورما صاحبه منه فعليه تسليم غالي الباب والبيت بقري وغنمي ضمناء القواعد عيب قصد ومَن حرق بيت صاحبه او شيءاً مِن زبونه تكبر او تصغر فلا له سِنَّة ولا صُحْبَة ويسّرح الغالي بالمربوع فوق النقيصة

29(27)
وكان ايمان القَتْل اربع واربعين جَذّ وايمان النقاء اثنين وعشرين جَذّ وذلك على المتهوم او المدعَى عليه وقبايله على أعراف اهل الملازم

30(28)
وكان المَنُوع الحلال بيوتهم في برط اذا وقع منه في أحد اهل الملازم فله سمش يومه رَفَق لا غير على شروع اهل الملازم وكانوا أخوة على حدودهم وبلادهم وشَوْفتهم ودكّات سوقهم

31(29)
وكان اذا وقع حِجَّة بين ارباع القُبل وبعض اهل الملازم وأراد صاحب الحِجَّة قطعها فكان قطعها على نَظَر اهل الملازم ولا لأحدهم أن يقطع حِجَّة بينه وبين ارباع القبل إلا بِمَوَالات اهل الملازم

32(30)
وكان اذا قامت بير او خُرَبت بير واحتاجت الى اخشاب فكان صاحبه مباح فيما يَلْزَم مِن الخشاب مِن قَرْض او طَلْح في فَيْش او مقصور ومَن فكّ قيد مطية وهي ترعا في فَيْش وضاعت او سيقت فهي حِملة ومَن أَسْقَى مطية او غيرها في منهل منقطعة وقَضَى عليها الموت كانت حِملة ومَن طرد مطية مِن شجر في فيش وماتت حَمَله فكانت حِملة حيث أنَّها في فَيْش لم هي في املاك والجار ثقة نفسه في المَدّة لا غير

33(31)
واذا كان وأحد مَدّ في نخلة مُثْمِرة وقطع مِن ثَمَرها كَثْر او قِل فعليه حُكْمها رأسين غنم سَدَس ورُباع والنقيصة بالمربوع واذا أحد مَدّ في نخلة غير مثمرة فيسرّح سترها على ما ذُكَر مع النقيصة

34(32)
وكان اذا تناكروا المتحاددين اهل الملازم او بينهم وبين ارباع القُبل فكان في الحدود ايمان خمسة مختارة في حدود او مقاصير او املاك وكانت شروع المَحَاجر لحِجْرَتها في السَنَة حِجْرَتين فمِن الصيف الى قَبْل الخريف ويُباح ومِن الخريف الى بعد علان ثم يُباح هذا في القَشْرَة أما النوابت فهي برأي مالكها مَحْجورة دائما

35(33)
واذا اثنين قتلوا واحد فمَن شَرَب احتمل والشريب (على شريبه) ثقة في السَرِقة أما الدم فلا يثبّت الشريب على شريبه

36(34)
واذا حدث بين خميسين فتنة ووقع قتل فكل أحد مِن الخميسين يدوّر لنقيصته مِن عند الذي نَقَّصه على أعراف اهل الملازم واذا تناكروا المحتربة فعلى كل فريق ايمان اربعة واربعين جَذّ أنّه يعود ويَبْرَى ثم يحتمل الحالفين الجميع دم او دسم

37(35)
واذا كان واثنين قتلوا واحد أحدهم قَبَض والاخر طَعَن فكان القتيل بينهم اثلاث ثُلث على القابض وثلثين على القاتل مع أنّهم اشتركوا في قتله ومَن ثلَث احتمل ولو القاتل غيره في جميع الحروب

38(36)
وكان ما باقي بين ذو محمد والمعاطرة عُلقة كلهم على الاخر بل المحمّدي على المحمّدي والمعطري على المعطري إلا اذا به عُشْر قبيلي وصل عند أحدهم فعليه أن يوصّله الى أقرب حَيّ ثم يتسيّر مِن القبيلتين كل منهم على لحمته وكذا القِطار وصلاح لارباع القُبل وهذا مِن التاريخ واخر حيث أنه كان السِيَار والقِطار ماضي على الجميع وهذا فِرْق خراب السنين الماضية لم تبقَى إلا قِطار للبدوي اربعة اشهر وعشر وللهجري ثَمَرَته

39(37)
ومَن عنده لصاحبه عَتْب فعليه تسليمه على شروع اهل الملازم في ثلاثة أحلال والأحلال ثلاث سنين واذا كان واللزيم يسوق العتب فله ناصفة سواقه وللمُلَزِّم ناصفة سَوْق وفراعه واذا به نقطة دم تحت العتب فلا امن ولا امان يجرى ما بين سابق ومستاق حتى يستوفى بأخر حِلّ مِن احلال العتب وأول حِلّ قِرْش ابيض وثاني وثالث حِلّ مما بيد السواق وقبايله إلا يعتذر عليهم في أول جِلّ ويَخْرج في الايمان فيقطع مما بيده بما ثمن العدل مع أنّه قد كان الاختلاف ما بين سابق ومستاق في عتوب وتشويف ومُزْغَل وغير ذلك

40(38)
ومَن شدّ وأوثن بين اعشار القٌبل ودخل في صَحْبهم فعلى اهل الملازم المُتَابعة بعده في مِدّة خمسة عشر يوماً ويلحقوه بنادق النزاع (النزاعات) فوق مَن تجنّى فوقه مِن ارباع القُبل فإن صَحّ وخروجه بقَصْرَة وعَثْرَة فعلى قبايله تسروح ما نجّد وإن ما نجّد عند قبايله لا قَصْرَة ولا عَثْرَة ولا ما يوجب فعلى القابلين له رجوعه واذا أحد تجنّى عند ذو محمد وآل محمد فعلا هذا وهذه الشروع الغصّابة واذا أحد مِن الاخماس والمعاطرة وصل الى فوق خميس اخر فعلى خميسه أن يلحقوه ببنادق النزاع (النزاعات) على شروع القبايل ويجعلوا شيخين شيخ مِن المطالبين وشيخ مِن القابلين فإن نجّد قصرة وعثرة وأوفوه على شروع القبايل فإن أوفوه ومنع أن يرجع فوق قبايله فعلى لحقاه واهل صُحْبَته طَرْده وإرجاعه فوق قبايله واذا لم يوفوه قبايله بما حُكَم له فهم القاصرين في شروع القبايل وضمينهم يُدعَى ويُشتم حتى يوفون بما حُكَم عليهم

41(39)
والشيخ اذا وقع فيه مَدّة مِن الغرماء او فِعْل او قَتْل أما في فراغه يفرع بين المتخاصمين عنده فما جرا فيه فهو بالمحدّش في وجيه الضمناء واذا خرج حُكْمه بين الغرماء وأحد الغرماء لم رَضِي يشل الفَصْل فكان الضمين يسوقه أما لتشريف الفَصْل او يقدّم بنادق الكَسْر لليشخ وبنادق الكَسْر هي ما يُقَوَّم بمائة ريال وعشرة ريال ويستاق الغريم والشيخ الى مراغه غصّابة وعلى الضمناء سَوْق الجميع

42(40)
فإن صَحّ فَصْل الشيخ سَلَّم مائة وعشرة قروش حقّ الوافي وربع دية للضمناء وللشيخ لزيم ومُلَزِّمه وسباعي وسباعية غالي حُرْمَة الشيخ واذا صَحّ الفصل غلط فيصبر الشيخ على ما جرا فيه ولا باقي حقّ على الغريم الذي قدم بنادق الكسر وبنادقه ترجع له

43(41)
واذا دُعَى الضمين او اللزيم او أحد اهل الملازم ببيضاء فعليه تقديم بندق البيضاء واذا اأبطل ونَجَحَت وَحَول البيضاء والخيار ولم يرتد فَصَحّ جِذْنه ولو ما عنده طلب حسب أعراف اهل الملازم

44(42)
واذا حصل نزاع او فتن بين اهل الملازم ولا يتراضوا على أحد فروع اهل الملازم ومرايغهم فعلى الجميع المساق والمساوقة الى مرايغ دَهْم بن مُلْهِبة إلا إن يريدوا مراغة مِن ذو حسين أما الغصّاب فهو بن مُلْهِبة او بن دُغْسَان ومَن لم يستاق مِن ذو محمد وآل محمد المعاطرة وذو عَمْر الى المرايغ الغصّابة فعلى الجميع حَوْره الى وجيه ضمناء القواعد

45(43)
واذا أحد اهل الملازم قام في أرض بيضاء ولم يجد فيها شئ وحَفَر فيها بير او عَمَر وأحد اراد أن يعمر عند العمرة ويحفر عند الحفيرة فحَرَم البير طول رشاها وحَرَم البيت على هواه هذا اذا كانت في أرض بيضاء ولا لأحد فيها لا حق ولا ملك ولا مشتجر وهذا الى وجيه الضمناء الاتي ذكرهم

46This is followed by the names of the guarantors, given separately at the end of the present work. These in turn are followed by the witnesses, prefaced with the single line:

47يُعْلَم ذلك واذا سدَوا اللحمتين بينهم بغير قَصَا وبغير حضور قاعدة فلا هي تِمْحَق القاعدة

48This in turn is followed by the list of transcriptions since 1211 hijrī (AD 1796), and after mention of the 1238 hijrī (AD 1822) copying by Ṣāliḥ Aḥmad al-ʿAnsī comes a further note:

49(44)
وكان الجار ثقة اذا أدعا بِمَدَّة فيه دون ماله وكان مَن عاب في وجيههم فهو بالمحدّش على شروع اهل الملازم في سوق العتب وغيره

Qawāʿid al-Malāzim Text B (1211 hijrī): Translation and notes

50In the name of God the compassionate and merciful. Praise be to God and peace on the one after whom [comes] no other prophet, our lord Muḥammad, God bless him and grant him peace. After which:

51SECTION 1
The men of Dhū Muḥammad, and Al Muḥammad al-Maʿāṭirah, and Dhū ʿAmr attended [a meeting] and committed themselves to what would please God. They committed themselves to establishing the custom of their fathers and forefathers and to confirming this [or “setting this right”,
ṣaḥḥah]. Their rules/agreements (qawāʿid‑hum), their brotherhood (ukhūwat-hum), and their obligations were confirmed, and the guarantors for these. What has happened until now in the way of transgressions, by which I mean wrongdoings,1 [will] no longer [take place] among them, on the honour of the guarantors. Their customary usage (aʿrāf) and obligations (malāzim) are established in great things and small.2 What is mentioned [here] is their renewal and confirmation, [valid] from this time forth. This is the custom of father and forefather, and a solution/settlement for whoever has a difference occur between himself and his fellow.3 This is the solution/settlement. It is three equal codes [i.e. copies of the code], word for word.4

  1. wrongdoings, ʿatharāt, cf. Serjeant ‘Law cases’ (part 1) p. 44. This more usually appears as part of the pair ʿathrah wa-qaṣrah (e.g. section 38, below) and seems superfluous here.

  2. in great things and small, thara(n) wa-thurayyā; or perhaps “now and forever”. A stereotyped phrase in Arabic, though no-one seems sure how to explicate it, cf. Serjeant ‘Law cases’ (part 2) p. 165, al-Akwaʿ Madkhal p. 40.

  3. solution, firq or farq (pl. firaq), rather than the dispute or difference to be solved. Several people have explained firq as faṣl al-mushkilah or ḥall al‑mushkilah.
    difference, luwā (or lawā was explained consistently not as a “hardship”, which dictionaries might suggest, but precisely as an inability to agree.

  4. By comparison with text A, the copies of B are consistent with each other and are generally well written. The photocopy version, given me by Bayt Thawābah, needs little comment. The wording is almost identical with that of the copy I photographed in 1979 and that of Abū Ghānim’s published photocopy in Bunyah qabalīyah. I have not listed minor errors such as repetitions in the Abū Ghānim text at section 13.

52SECTION 2
The first thing is wounding a woman.
1 There is no right in this (mā fī-h sinnah) unless there are wounds to men [inflicted at the time] and [the man] who wounds the woman claims she was [involved or wounded] wrongly.2 He [then] has the debt of intent [i.e. he is assumed to have wounded her intentionally unless he can demonstrate otherwise], according to usage/custom, by the oath of twenty-two witnesses.3 If he fears the debt of intent [fails to secure sufficient witnesses], then he pays four-fold and his right (sinnah) is [again] effective.4 If he passes the debt of intent [i.e. secures sufficient witnesses], then he pays blood[-money] and shame[-money] like it,5 together with a seven-year-old camel and a subāʿīyah.6 This is the price of tashwīf.

  1. fiʿl (pr. also faʿl) can mean any action, but the usual meaning in ʿurf in a context like this would be specifically a wound (syn. kawn) and that is how shaykhs from Baraṭ have all read the passage.

  2. ghārib/ghāribah and related terms are commonly used to mean wrongly or in error (cf. al-jidhn al-gharb in section 15, below). I have heard ghārib used in Ḥāshid, for example, to describe a man who was shot “by mistake” in a fight between others. But here, according to Ṣāliḥ Muqbil Juzaylān, it means primarily that the woman should not have been there. Hence the cautious translation “wrongly”.
    The repetition of
    illā idha is read as meaning simply “and” by general consent and by comparing this sentence with text A section 3. If the two conditions were separate alternatives, this would sanction the “deliberate” wounding of women in a fight among men, which is not the case in ʿurf. First there must have been a fight, then the woman present wrongly, then we reach the question of intent.

  3. witness, jadhdh, local syn. qaṭʿ (see also section 27). Oddly, the same equation of jadhdh and qaṭʿ is reported by Landberg (Glossaire p. 272) but with the meaning of a “bit” or “piece” rather than a “witness”. For notes on oath-taking see part three of the introductory essay.

  4. his right is [again] effective, maḍat la-h al-sinnah and later on here al‑sinnah māḍīyah. Compare the more common phrase al-ʿarḍ māḍī (Dresch Tribes p. 82), which means a man’s right to grant protection is current or effective, recognized by fellow tribesmen.
    The verb
    maḍā can equally well mean to continue or to finish, but the meaning here seems clear from context. If one’s sinnah were not again recognized there would be no point in paying four-fold.

  5. blood[-money] and shame[-money] like it, dam wa-mithl-ah dhamm, quite a common phrase in ʿurf: if one does 50 riyāls of damage in a circumstance other than straightforward fighting, then one often pays that plus another fifty. See part three of the introductory essay.

  6. The subāʿīyah is defined below (section 3) as a two-piece, indigoed length of cloth. The two strips are sewn together across the long axis. Within living memory indigoed cloth came both from Zabīd and from southern Yemen.
    The term
    subāʿī was explained to me by badu from Wādī Sillah, to the east and north of Baraṭ: at seven years apparently a camel is just full grown, i.e. in the prime of life. Shaykhs at Baraṭ concur. Classically one might expect it to mean seven hand-­spans to the shoulder, but this is surely not big enough (Lane suggests seven cubits). Some copies of text B have baʿāyir. Text A section 4 suggests values: 15 or 25 qirsh for the camel and five for the cloth.

53SECTION 3
Whoever wounds an uncircumcised male, even if [the latter] is full grown,
1 has no right (fa-lā la-h sinnah) unless he escapes by oaths the [presumption of] intent and the judgement for an uncircumcised male (sharʿ al-rughlah) is sought.2 If he [the uncircumcised male] was killed, the judgement for him [i.e. the amends due] is a hundred sinn,3 [which is] the judgement for offences against the uncircumcised, and a seven-year-old camel and a subāʿīyah. The subāʿīyah is a two-piece length of cloth dyed in indigo and seven cubits long. This is for an offence against an uncircumcised male. If he wounds4 the uncircumcised male, then a comparison (taqdīr) is made, with regard to the fine for offences against the uncircumcised, between the wound and killing. The blood remains to be judged by his people5 apart from what has been mentioned. If [the culprit] escapes the [presumption of] intent [by means of] oaths from twenty-­two witnesses, three quarters of [the fine for] an offence against the uncircumcised are dropped and it is reckoned at one quarter, together with payment of a seven-year-old camel and a subāʿīyah. If two uncircumcised males fight, do what has been set out above.6

  1. The murghal (often pr. mirghal) or uncircumcised male was not fair game in vengeance. Families involved in a bitter feud would simply not circumcise a boy who would otherwise be threatened with death, and some men were never circumcised (see introductory essay). The term kāmil refers to such a person being fully grown, therefore, not physically whole.

  2. rughlah, cf. classical ghurlah, the foreskin. At the end of the first line of the Arabic many people read yuḍʿī as if it were a form IV active verb, which is not found in classical; the passive yuḍʿā (“is sought”) anyway fits the context well. No-one has spontaneously read this as form VIII. Text A has yadī. The fine would have been paid in addition to the standard blood-money.

  3. mi'at sinn. Parallels with early Islamic law might suggest 100 camels (the classical full blood-money), and some argue sinn means a camel’s hump. However, most informants insist the term here means sheep (sinn would be literally a “tooth”). In some copies of text A (section 4) we are told compensation for a slain murghal is 100 qirsh, The immediate assumption that this means silver pieces should be resisted, however, since qurāsh is a common term for sheep and goats. Also, parallels with the Latin pecunia aside, a prime sheep might well have been worth about one riyāl.

  4. if he wounds, in huwa kawwana (from kawn, a wound, Landberg Glossaire pp. 2597-98). In fact many people read simply wa-in huw kawn fī l-murghal.

  5. his people, ahl-ah, more literally “its people”, i.e. the people or owners of the blood, those referred to in Islamic law as awliyā' al-dam.

  6. Reading iqtatalū for qatalū or qutilū in three copies of text B. If it were simply two uncircumcised males coming to grief at the hands of tribesmen, then the course of action would be obvious. Text A section 4 has plainly yaqtatalā, the dual of form VIII.
    The verb
    wuthara or wuthira is here a synonym for dhukara (dhukira, i.e. “mentioned” above), but in other contexts it can mean more specifically “established”, as for instance by formal precedent or an old agreement.

54SECTION 4
If two [men], not uncircumcised males, fight and one of them suffers
shawfah, by which I mean a wound in the face, plus the ears, or in the Achilles tendon (salabah) or the lower leg (kaʿb); if this happens and the culprit escapes [the presumption of] intent [by collective oath], then he pays what covers it [i.e. amends for the offence] according to the judgement/laws of tashwīf.1 A distinction is made in tashwīf between men and women, everything [being judged] according to its rule,2 together with payment of the seven-year-old camel and the subāʿīyah. If [the culprit] does not escape [the presumption of] intent, he has no right (sinnah), no fellow (ṣāḥib), and no link (ʿulqah e.g. as of traveller to escort).

  1. In the first line of this passage one might expect shawʿah (“mutilation”), and later tashwīʿ, but informants well steeped in ʿurf have all read shawfah. The term commonly means a woman. Elsewhere one finds tashwīf used not only of offences against women but of all offences against the moral integrity of persons or tribes (see the introductory essay).

  2. according to its rule, bi-sharʿ-ah. Unfortunately the actual scale of amends is nowhere spelled out. Most experts at Baraṭ assume it was payment two-fold, dam wa-­dhamm; some have suggested four-fold.

55SECTION 5
The neighbour apart,
1 [whether] nomad or settled person (badawī wa-hajarī), has twice four days among the allied people (bayn ahl al-malāzim). Ṣanʿā’ and Abū ʿArīsh and the west have [twice] eight days. Those of the Tihāmah2 and [Lower] Yemen have [twice] fifteen days. After this period the [link/obligation] becomes sound (ṣaḥḥat), on the neighbour’s honour, and the neighbour is [the one] responsible.3 Whoever deliberately commits a disgrace against his fellow [when the latter is linked to another] in his right (sinnah) or obligation (malzam, e.g. they are at truce or are traveller and escort)4 has no fellow (ṣāḥib), no right (sinnah) and no [ability to enter an] obligation (malzam), on the honour of the guarantors.5

  1. the neighbour apart, jār al-ṭulaq. Learned informants have been consistent in their pronunciation of the phrase, less so in their interpretation. Some have gone so far as to suggest this is someone gratuitously helping an outsider who comes to grief in Dhū Muḥammad. Much more probably it refers to a fellow tribesman who is simply not present when a relation is formed or invoked.
    For instance a dispute may arise between elements of two fifths, and someone from another element of one of these, who is not present at the start, may or may not be willing to involve himself. Or a truce may be agreed or terminated, or someone be called on for collective oath. The intention of what follows is clear enough: to form or sever a relation one must give notice, and time must be allowed for the news to reach the other party and an answer to be returned.

  2. Most copies of text A section 6 give bāqī al-tihāmah. All the copies of text B give mawlā. One is tempted at first to fish among such meanings as “provinces” but it is hard to think what might be referred to. Informants agree it means simply someone living there, “he of” the Tihāmah or Lower Yemen (cf. “he of the month” in text 1 sections 10, 12).

  3. Two copies of text A section 6 give ṣaḥḥat al-sinnah. By “the one responsible” (lazīm, syn. mulazzam) is meant someone in the position of e.g. guarantor. The mulazzim (or mulzim), by contrast, would be the one to whom he is responsible (see part three of the introductory essay and e.g. sections 13, 14 below). The jār or neighbour here is a fellow tribesman.

  4. man ʿayyaba ṣāḥib-ah fī sinnat-ah could mean a man wronging another to whom he is specifically linked himself, e.g. as escort to traveller. Shaykhs from Baraṭ have taken it to have a more general meaning: if one tribesman bound by this pact wrongs another by attacking, say, the second man’s guest or protégé, wherever the protégé comes from, then he insults not only his fellow but all the guarantors.

  5. It is unclear whether this passage follows directly from provisions concerning jār al-ṭulaq or belongs with the sentence following. In either case it serves well as a statement of the general importance of these quasi-contractual links.

56SECTION 6
The companion at one’s side is the one who accompanies (
al-musāyir li-) his companion.1 There is no link (ʿulqah, no binding obligation) except the particular link formed [i.e. a specific agreement to escort the person from one place to another].2 The companion at one’s back who [is claimed as such only] by announcement has no part [in mutual defence and responsibility], and escort [claimed only] by an announcement gives him [the claimant] no right of escort.3 From now on among the allied people the companion at one’s back, or the refugee who pays, or announcements [by themselves] no longer [count as] an obligation, or right, or link.4 Whoever acts disgracefully toward the escort at one’s side or the neighbour of the house, [by which] I mean a refugee (qaṭīr), or the neighbour of the nail5 shall have no companionship (ṣaḥb in the tribe) and no right (sinnah) on the honour of the guarantors.

  1. the companion at one’s side, rafīq al-janb, and later sayyir al-janb, often understood as the Qurʿānic ṣāḥib bi-l-janb (cf. Rossi ‘Diritto’ p. 20).

  2. Here I read wa-lā ʿulqah illā mā ʿalaqa-h (or ʿallaqa-h) min jamīʿ al‑ʿulaq, not fī jamīʿ al‑ʿulaq. Some copies have ʿulaqat. All learned informants agreed on the meaning –that only specific agreements are binding, so once my escort has delivered me to the place specified I cannot claim his protection if I press on somewhere else or decide to go somewhere else en route.

  3. announcement, ẓāhirah: specifically an announcement at market. ʿAbdullāh Yaʿqūb of al-Maʿāṭirah remembered this system being used in Sufyān when he was a child. His father arrived at al-Ḥarf and was afraid to go further because someone in Sufyān wished to kill him, so he made an announcement in the market that he was under the protection of a particular Sufyānī shaykh; he was then safe to go to the shaykh’s house although the shaykh did not know of the claim. Dhū Muḥammad are here abandoning a system of that kind. An announcement no longer gives protection. From now on the protector/escort has actually to be with the traveller escorted.
    The passage would read more easily were it
    wa-l-sayyir (or musāyir) alladhī bi-ẓāhirah lā siyār la-h. The word siyār refers usually to the status, not the person.

  4. Here I have inserted a negative particle before bāqī. Although the copies are consistent, informants all agree the text is faulty and should read wa‑kāna bāqī (or mā baqī, which some pronounce baqā) bayn ahl al‑malāzim fī rafīq al-qafā wa-qaṭīr al­-ujrah wa-l-ẓawāhir malzam... The terms malzam, sinnah, and ʿulqah overlap so much that one cannot have one positive and the other two negative.
    the refugee who pays,
    qaṭīr al­-ujrah. The qaṭīr may equally be the refugee or the one giving refuge (see the introductory essay). The qaṭīr al-dukhān (supposedly named for the “smoke” of the hearth), who lives with his protector or protégé, is still recognized but presumably must be there for sound reason. I suspect the system of payments re-established itself, because older men I talked to around 1980 remembered a practice of giving two silver riyāls a year to maintain qaṭīr whether or not the parties actually lived side by side.

  5. the neighbour of the nail, jār al-mismār, a “weak” (i.e. non-tribal) person, who apparently would slaughter a sheep at a tribesman’s house and drive a nail into the door to establish protected status. The refugee (qaṭīr) or neighbour of the house (jār al-bayt), by contrast, would be a tribesman.

57SECTION 7
The neighbour of the house (
jār al-bayt) is whoever places his house [perhaps, his tent] or his flocks alongside [another’s] according to the tribesmen’s judgement/laws.1 An incomer (naqīlah) has no part (ijāzah in collective responsibility, payments, defence, etc.).2 The incomer who [gains his position by] the taking of money for refuge or escort is henceforth not recognized. Whoever [of other tribes] owes compensation to Dhū Muḥammad or Āl Muḥammad or Dhū ʿAmr –the allied people– [for a] known killing, if he pays [or agrees to pay]3 his protector (rabīʿ-ah), [by which] I mean he who provides him refuge (qaṭīr-ah) or he who gives him escort (sayyir-ah), he has right of protection (rabāʿ). If he does not pay [or agree to pay], he has no right of protection and no neighbour-right.4

  1. It is unclear whether ʿalā shurūʿ al-qabā'il here means “according to tribal custom” (i.e. anyone can claim protection by placing his tent next to mine) or “according to the tribesmen’s judgement” (i.e. the particular person is allowed by us to pitch camp in our territory because he has a specific problem elsewhere).

  2. The construction man hiyā seems equivalent simply to alladhī, “who”: it introduces a qualifying clause rather than defining what a naqīlah is.

  3. pays, lathagha, perhaps literally to “spit out” or “cough up”. Both at Baraṭ and near Ḥūth I have heard it used of a cow spitting cud. In Nihm, and perhaps elsewhere, it can mean the way a snake bites, the snake being thought to “spit out” its poison. The term widā (in some copies widād) and in the next line widādah) means simply “payment”. It seems not to be thought of as from dīyah, blood-money.

  4. Reading wa-lā ijārah rather than lā ijāzah as above, although the more common term is majūrah or jīrah (see text 1 sections 2 and 12, al-Akwaʿ Madkhal p. 41).

58SECTION 8
[Obligations deriving from] the roots of flesh and of blood [i.e. from marriage]
1 with neighbouring tribes2 are that everyone acts against [only] his [own] section, not one fifth acting against another fifth. As for [such matters] among the [above‑mentioned allied people, the obligation (lazam) for the roots of flesh and of blood among them is that everyone acts [only] against his [own] section, as was mentioned [in connection with] the roots of flesh and of blood [with other tribes].3

  1. roots of flesh and blood, ʿurūq al-laḥm wa-l-dam (in text A and two copies of B, ʿurwah). Informants were unanimous that this refers to links produced by marriage. But many say it would also include e.g. ties to the samī or namesake (see part one of introductory essay and cf. text A sections 8, 16).

  2. neighbouring tribes, arbāʿ al-qubul. Note the contrast in section 24 between arbāʿ al-qubul and al-aghrāb or aʿshār al-qubul, “strangers” who are further away. It is arbāʿ al-qubul with whom disagreements are possible over borders (section 32, below).
    Much depends on context, as in section 38, below, where in a single sentence the same tribes are referred to as
    aʿshār, when their difference from ahl al-malāzim (“the allied people”) is stressed, and arbāʿ, when their relatedness or proximity matters.

  3. If, as a Muḥammadī, I marry a woman from Dhū Ḥusayn and her kin then get in trouble with someone from Dhū Muḥammad, they can come and ask me for help, rather as the ḥalīf or “ally” from another tribe does in Glaser’s nineteenth century account of tribal custom (Glaser ‘Arḥab’ p. 6).
    What the
    qawāʿid are saying is that in these circumstances I can only act for my in-laws against someone in my own section: e.g. if I am from Āl Aḥmad b. Kawl and my relatives in Dhū Ḥusayn are at odds with someone from Āl Aḥmad b. Kawl, then I can try to help them. If my relatives in Dhū Ḥusayn are at odds with someone in Āl Dumaynah, I cannot intervene.

59SECTION 9
If two or more men travel together without each forming a [specific] link with his fellow,
1 and something befalls one of them, the escort/traveller is under no obligation to act (yathawr, in defence of or to avenge his fellow) except as he [gratuitously] helps2 his travelling companion3 at the time [of the incident].

  1. This is the complement of section 6, above. Simply moving from place to place together does not form an ʿulqah. One has to say explicitly, “I will escort you from this place to that”.

  2. help, yuqāfī. I have had this explained to me, not only at Baraṭ but by friends in Ḥāshid, as “to help someone where there is no obligation to do so”. For example, if I see someone’s house catch fire, I do not have to do anything (lā luzūm). If I put out the fire, I do it for humanitarian reasons. I do it gratuitously (uqāfī).
    The term qāfī is used as a noun of acts that are expected but are not enforced by formal sanctions. If, for instance, one is visiting some other tribe and a woman from one’s own tribe is married there, then she should offer one bread: that is her qāfī.
    To look at the term, one would expect a connection with qafā or qaffā, “to turn one’s back” on someone, i.e. abandon them (see glossary). Informants at Baraṭ insist the words are unrelated.

  3. travelling companion, sayyir. I have translated this differently in the two places it occurs here. It seems to mean simply a fellow traveller (syn. musāyir), but in discussion I have always heard sayyir used to mean specifically sayyir al-janb, a formal escort (compare section 6, above), which is precisely what a casual fellow-traveller is not.

60SECTION 10
At meetings of Dhū Muḥammad, Āl Muḥammad, and Dhū ʿAmr –the allied people (
ahl al-malāzim)where the allied people meet as two sections or more, if [someone from] one of the two sections offers violence to one of those attending the meeting,1 he shall have no right and no link [to call on] among those at the meeting, except that his companion shall see him to his house.2 After he has been escorted to his house he has no [ability to enter] an obligation and no link [with anyone] at meetings of Dhū Muḥammad in the east or west or [even] at market in al‑ʿInān. Instead he [must] remain in his house until he pays amends (ʿatb) to the guarantors of [these] rules. As for amends for killing or shame,3 [by which] I mean a wound [is inflicted, or damage done] on the day a meeting is held, [the offender] shall have no [ability to enter an] obligation and no link, except that his companion see him to his house –nothing more than this, unless he pays what he must of the cost/fine, [by which] I mean amends to the people of the agreement/rules4 together with what covers [the offence]. [Then] his link[s] and right[s] are [again] effective/recognized.

  1. The phrase aḥad al-laḥmatayn here means “one of the men who belong to either of the two sections”, rather than referring to the whole section committing an offence. A common shortened form in documents.

  2. This companion or escort would be appointed at the time of the offence by those who had convened the meeting. He is not already the offender’s “companion” by virtue of belonging to the same section. Someone is simply nominated to get the offender out of the way before further trouble ensues.

  3. amends, ʿatb: usually this means for a disgrace (ʿatb and ʿayb can virtually be interchangeable, see e.g. text A section 13) as opposed to compensation (naqṣ) for wounds or material damage. The distinction between ʿatb qatl and ʿatb ḥashm in the present context is unclear.
    Any offence at a meeting requires amends for the insult and compensation for the injury or damage done, if any. The usual procedure in
    ʿurf is that anyone who breaks the peace at a meeting must pay amends to those shaykhs who convened the meeting.

  4. people of the agreement, ahl al-qāʿidah, presumably means the same as ḍumanā' al-qawāʿid a few lines earlier. It may be here that paying ahl al‑qāʿidah (the guarantors of this agreement) is symptomatic of the way the document makes Dhū Muḥammad et al. a cohesive unit, but we cannot discount the possibility that ahl al-qāʿidah is not the same as ḍumanā' al‑qawāʿid and may instead mean those who called the meeting –the people usually referred to in customary law as ahl al-mawqif.

61SECTION 11
Their [responses to] offences
1 against their market and the roads to it are one, and [responses to offences against] their women2 are one, from within [the tribe] as against outside.3 If there is [a response to] an offence against their market or a woman, and one of them owes [a debt of] blood to another of the allied people, he shall have an escort to his house even if he has disgraced/insulted his [own] tribesmen.4

  1. dakkah means both the offence against the market and the collective response to that offence, i.e. what elsewhere in Upper Yemen is called fazaʿ. Everyone is supposed to turn out, regardless of sectional differences.

  2. The most obvious meaning of shawfah here is “woman/women”, but learned informants agree that it refers more generally to offences against muʿawwarāt, all the “domestic” matters in a tribesman’s care. See part three of the introductory essay.

  3. as against outside, ʿaẓma-hum wa-khārij: in others words, specifically as regards aggression by tribesmen from elsewhere. This differs from the explanation given me for the phrase in a recent document (Dresch ‘Sufyān’ p. 52) that it covers both internal and external relations. See also al-Akwaʿ Madkhal p. 30.

  4. During a collective response to certain offences all internal claims and disputes are suspended. If someone is confined to his house because he wounded or killed a man and no settlement has been made, he can come out and join the tribe to right a wrong against the market or a shawfah and cannot be attacked: he is escorted to the front, fights alongside us, and is then escorted home again. The earlier claim to vengeance can only be pursued afterwards (cf. Dresch ‘Sufyān’ p. 57).
    even if he has disgraced,
    in muʿayyib in the Thawābah text, but in most copies law muʿayyib. This is a striking exception to the rule that a man who commits ʿayb or disgrace has no legal standing.

62SECTION 12
When [literally “on the day that”] one of the allied people claims amends from his fellow he shall do so by
bayḍā’ wa-khiyār1 in view of/with the agreement of the allied people.2 The one against whom the claim is made has fifteen days to answer the white flag (irtadd ʿalā al-bayḍā’) according to their rules/agreements and their customs. If not [if he fails to answer the claim] then [the claimant] vilifies3 him at his house [i.e. the claimant’s house] and before his people/relatives. It is on the honour of the guarantors [that] no-one of the allied people shall vilify his fellow in the market [at al­-ʿInān]. If one of them vilifies his fellow in the market, he shall have insulted the guarantors, the guarantors of [this] agreement, and insulted the guarantors of the market. He must [pay] eleven-fold for placing the jidhn against his fellow in the market, half to the guarantors of the market-rules from the section [responsible for the market] in the month when the blame (al-malām, i.e. the jidhn) was placed and half to the [person] vilified.4 The people of the agreement [i.e. the guarantors of these rules] can claim amends and malzam5 as they judge fit, apart from [the fines] mentioned.

  1. The details of this procedure are discussed in part three of the introductory essay. See also Dresch ‘Placing the blame’. The claims here are for amends (ʿatb): in other words, recompense for breach of an obligation, not simply for material damages.
    Some of the copies differ, but most people prefer to read
    yatlub-ah bayḍā’ rather than bi- bayḍā’.

  2. in view of/with the agreement of, ʿalā anẓār (not inẓār, apparently). Setting up a white flag and black flag has to be public, and one of the points always stressed in discussion of setting up flags or the jidhns is that these symbols have to be guarded. Otherwise, the person they are set up to disgrace would simply knock them down.
    More generally
    naẓar has associations not only with supervision (ishrāf) but with mediation (wāsiṭah): ʿalā naẓar might almost be explained as “by way of”, the meaning Piamenta lists for bi-naẓar while giving “in the presence of” for ʿalā naẓar (Piamenta Dictionary p. 489). The plural form anẓār is unexpected here. Usually it would occur only if a handful of named individuals were responsible.

  3. vilify, shatama, a term always used of the act of placing the jidhn. I have certainly not seen it in writing, and I think I have never heard it, used to mean anything else around Baraṭ or in the Jawf.

  4. the section responsible, ahl al-shahr, the fifth who uphold the market‑peace in a given month (see the introductory essay, part one, and text 1 sections 7, 8, 10).

  5. This seems to be the only such use of malzam in the document, referring not to a status or formal obligation but instead to what is due as a payment. Perhaps we should read it mulzam, “that which is due”.

63SECTION 13 (part 1)
If one of the allied people proves (
najjad) amends against his fellow, such as [for] guaranty or truce or having eaten1 with him against whom the claim is made or with his people, according to the allied people’s judgement/laws, or [for] whatever deserves amends [according to] a document or witnesses (shuhūd), and if the allied people accept/confirm this (yamaḍḍū-hā), then if [the culprit] repairs the disgrace and pays the damages,2 he has right[s] and link[s]. If he does not repair the disgrace and pay the damages, he has no right and no link. If [the claim] is not proved by a document or by witnesses (shuhūd), he [the defendant] must [provide/find] an oath of recompense (aymān al-naqā’) from twenty-two [persons] that he has done what clears him.3 If he makes recompense (tanaqqā) and witnesses are acquired, then the debt [still] owed is as the testimony says.4

  1. having eaten, zād al-baṭn, the famous link of “the bread and the salt”. For details see text A section 17.

  2. repair the disgrace, ḥashama (rather than commit disgrace, as the word is used to mean in text A section 13); pay the damages, sāqa l-naqā'. Probably these would both have been cash payments, but the first concerns ʿayb and the second naqīṣah, where the principle would apply that al-ʿayb qabla l‑naqṣ: only when the disgrace has been repaired can material damages be settled. Text A section 13 is simpler and clearer: ammā ḥashama wa-sāqa l-ḥashm.

  3. what clears him, maḥḍ al-naqā'. The word maḥḍ is used of e.g. fresh camel’s milk, and again there is the association here of right action with “whiteness”, rather than, as one might expect from classical dictionaries, with e.g. sincerity.
    For the preceding clauses cf. text section 13, where for
    aymān al-naqā' we have ʿind gharīm-ah dayn... In the present version, as so often, subject and object swap places without very clear indication.

  4. makes recompense, tanaqqā, cf. the simpler phrasing in text A: in yaḥsal shuhūd kān dayn-ah ʿalā shahādat-ah or ʿalā mā yuthabbat min al-shahādah. The meaning would seem to be that if he pays or takes vengeance as asked, the witnesses then evaluate what he has already done and decide how much remains to do. The verb tanaqqā could mean to “owe recompense” rather than to have already paid it (cf. text A section 9, note 5), but text A section 13 makes this unlikely unless the testimony (shahādah) here is one now sought by the defendant, not the claimant.
    witnesses,
    shuhūd; as above; testimony, shahādah. These are people who testify to the detail of the particular case, as in effect eye-witnesses. The oath of recompense (aymān al-naqā') is from a quite different kind of witness, the jadhdh, who need not know the detail of events but who swears in what amounts to compurgation.
    debt,
    dayn, though this could again be an oath, whereby the man summonsed affirms that he has now done what the testimony required he do.

64SECTION 13 (part 2)
And if it should be that he establishes/invokes
1 with the allied people a right and link, then the neighbour (jār) must stand [in for him] as protected.2 The neighbour [is reckoned] a bondsman3 among the allied people, and the one responsible (lazīm) is bound by the wishes of him to whom he is responsible (mulazzim-ah). The day he departs from the wishes of the one to whom he is responsible, he is in the wrong [literally “has no whiteness”] and deliberately insults the guarantors of [these] rules. The one responsible is a trusted witness in [i.e. as regards] his obligation, according to the allied people’s laws/judgement.4

  1. establishes/invokes, waṣṣala. Opinions differ. It is possible that this should be waṣala, “arrive”, but if so, then something is missing. On the other hand, form II can mean to settle, as for instance by vengeance, and form IV (awṣala), like form II on occasion, can mean to establish or to prove (syn. anjada or najjada).
    The likely meaning here is that someone from A has a claim against someone from B, and someone else from B stands forward (waṣṣala), perhaps giving a rifle, to invoke or establish a relation with the defendant. The defendant (the first jār or “neighbour” in this passage) is then reckoned protected, or muṣān: the second jār (see note 3, below) takes responsibility as muṣawwin. Alternatively the initial claimant himself may “prove” (waṣṣala) an existing relation, demonstrating to ahl al-malāzim (“the allied people”, the parties to the agreement) that the other man really was his host, escort, or guarantor and thus owes him amends: in either case ahl al‑malāzim, the indirect object in English, provides the direct object of the verb in Arabic.
    The subject of the verb
    waṣṣala is unclear. The implicit “he” may be anyone of the allied people and the statement general; just as easily it may run on from the preceding line (section 13 part one).

  2. Text A (section 13) here is more elaborate. If someone invokes a right “and his fellow demands amends” then the neighbour must stand [in for him] as protected: “whether or not what came before is proved, he owes only an oath that he did what was right”.
    stand [in for him],
    yastaqīm: in other words take on or discharge responsibility, cf. istaqāma in section 23, below, and al-Sayāghī (ed.) Ṣafaḥāt p. 71. But many at Baraṭ have explained this as “be considered”, “be valued”, as if the word connected with qawwama, to value or reckon.

  3. bondsman, kafīl. Some people at Baraṭ draw a clearer distinction than is usual further west (cf. Dresch Tribes p. 93) between the bondsman (kafīl) and the guarantor (ḍamīn): the former is specifically concerned with payment. This allows them to read the passage as meaning a non-tribal person or jār is sent as intermediary in settling these debts. Text A section 13, however, adds that the jār or kafīl takes responsibility (yaḥjib, covers) for Dhū Muḥammad, which a “weak” non-tribesman could not do.

  4. trusted witness, thiqah, cf. al-Akwaʿ Madkhal p. 30. The meaning is that no collective oath is required to confirm his claim to have discharged his obligation: he simply swears for himself. If these provisions run on from those earlier (section 13 part one), the obligation in question seems here to be a new one, taken on by a fresh guarantor or lazīm, to oversee settlement of the first claim to amends. Text A section 13 suggests the obligation is valid whether or not the first claim is proved.

65SECTION 14
If one of the allied people is shot at when he is at truce or has a link [e.g. he is under someone’s supervision or protection through refuge or guaranty] and [the shot] does not hit, then the mistaken rifle is [fined at] one quarter of the blood-money, [divided between] the person responsible (
lazīm, the protector or guarantor) and the person to whom he’s responsible (mulazzim‑ah).1 If there was no [such] right or link, then the mistaken rifle is [fined at] one hundred and ten [silver pieces], on the honour of the guarantors of [these] rules. Whether the culprit pays or not, he [the claimant] has no right unless the demand is sought as just recompense (ṣawāb) according to the allied people’s customs and [the culprit] does not respond/answer (irtadd) when [settlement] is offered him by an announcement at market.2 After he is shot at and escapes, then where there’s no harm there’s no fine to pay,3 although he [the one who fired] is forbidden his just recompense according to the allied people’s judgement/laws.4

  1. The couple lazīm/ mulazzim was met with in section 13. The obvious case in the present section would be that someone acts as guarantor (ḍamīn) for a settlement and the person under his supervision is shot at: both are due amends.

  2. Here, we should note, the whole process of “self-help” is regularized and is encompassed in public rules. Compare sections 20 and 21, below. If someone refuses to accept payment, and insists on his right to vengeance, then he is on his own; if he accepts the payment offered, no-one enforces any further judgement (the blood itself may “remain to be judged”) but they do admit his usual rights to escort and refuge.
    Much here turns on the meaning of
    irtadda. In standard Arabic it might mean to refuse or renege on something. The meaning here seems to be “to answer”, as in section 12, above, where someone who is summonsed by setting up flags at market has to “answer the claim” or face having a jidhn planted.

  3. where there’s no harm there’s no fine to pay, lā fī salāmah gharāmah. This is a very common phrase and is used in far less formal settings than judgement by customary law. If someone breaks something or knocks into one by accident and one just wants to say “never mind, no harm done”, one says lightly lā fī salāmah gharāmah.

  4. The passive verb (yurmā, “shot at”) makes the construction of this sentence awkward: in fact, despite the upright alif maqṣūrah, many people have read yurmī, “shoots at”, which is how it appears in Abū Ghānim’s copy. To make sense of the sentence here we have to assume the subject of the verb shifts from meaning one party, who is shot at (yurmā), to meaning the other, who fired the shot and is therefore forbidden (yumnaʿ) his recompense.
    Logically the second part of the sentence itself seems to fall more naturally before the sentence beginning “Whether the culprit pays or not...”

66SECTION 15
A shaykh who is [chosen as] arbitrator
1 is a trusted witness2 [regarding what occurs] between those at odds and [regarding] what befalls him [during arbitration]. The guarantors [answerable] to the shaykh are under his supervision (ʿalā ra'yi‑h, at his disposal or bound by his wishes]3 according to the usage/customs of the allied people: if he summons them they [must] answer, and if he declares himself quit of them4 he is allowed [to do] that. The guarantor has no duty (ḥaqq ʿalay-h, i.e. to act against one of those at odds) without the request/demand of the shaykh or of the disputing party.5 The price of a mistaken jidhn is one hundred and ten [silver] riyāls according to the judgement/laws of the allied people, on the honour of the guarantors of [these] rules.6

  1. chosen as arbitrator, muḥakkam: the passive vowelling is definite here. Informants say muḥakkim would mean one of the parties to the dispute, i.e. one of the ghuramā'.

  2. trusted witness, thiqah maḥḍar-ah. This phrase occurs in a number of recent hijrah documents as well as elsewhere. If the arbitrator says one of the ghuramā' broke the truce by attacking him or attacking the other gharīm, that is the end of it: one cannot argue with him. If he says one has to pay amends, one cannot appeal to anyone else for judgement. The term maḥḍar presumably means his “presence”. Al-ʿAlīmī (Qaḍā' qabalī p. 131) suggests taking it as a collective noun meaning those present with him, i.e. those involved in the arbitration, but I have not heard this suggested by friends from Baraṭ.

  3. under his supervision, ʿalā ra'yi-h, cf. section 13, above. I heard this phrase used (interestingly enough, by ʿAbdullāh Yaʿqūb of al-Maʿāṭirah) in a dispute in Sufyān. It meant that the guarantor had to do what he was told by the person he guaranteed. A’s guarantor (kafīl) for B’s behaviour was told by A, after B had killed someone at truce, that he (the kafīl) must take vengeance on B. He refused. ʿAbdullāh Yaʿqūb judged he should indeed hunt him down, and said al-lazīm (i.e. the guarantor) ʿalā ra'yi mulazzim‑ah: he was bound by the wishes of A to whom he had offered guaranty. So, here, the guarantor must do what the arbitrating shaykh tells him to do.

  4. declares himself quit of them, takāfā ʿan-hum. Most informants says this means barā or ibtarā, i.e. he decides to have nothing further to do with the guarantors. Others have argued it means “demand as much as one wants”, so “whatever he asks of them, they must do or give”.

  5. has no duty, lā ḥaqq ʿalā l-ḍamīn. But despite the grammar, which seems unambiguous, one would expect ḥaqq here to mean a “right” to act, rather than a duty: the guarantor might well wish to avenge some perceived slight to himself, and the shaykh or disputing party not wish it.

  6. Most argue the jidhn would be placed, probably in front of his house, by one of the disputing parties who considered that the guarantor had not discharged his obligation. But section 41, below, also sandwiched between provisions on arbitration, says that a jidhn can properly follow any failure to respond to a formal summons, whether or not the summons itself is justified. How a claim prima facie plausible and its judgement as right or wrong are separated here is not clear.

67SECTION 16
The market and its roads [i.e. the roads leading to it] are secure, according to their [the allied people’s] rules/agreements and the market-rules.
1 Whoever does anything (faʿal, commits an offence or inflicts a wound) there2 shall have no right and no fellow unless he pays eleven-fold for what occurred in the market on the days and nights of the market according to [the market’s] rules. [Payment] eleven-fold is for [offences committed on] the day of the market.3 The roads to the market are secure in all four directions for he who brings goods (jallāb al-manfaʿah). If Dhū Ḥusayn commit aggression on one of the roads and it is [within the area] from the crest of Asḥar northward or on the Jawf road west of al-Faraḥ, they are liable to [the provisions] in the rules of the marker.4

  1. Presumably this means the roads within Dhū Muḥammad’s territory, but as we saw in the introductory essay (part one) and discussing the market-guaranty (text 1), claims are made that guaranty of the roads once extended further.

  2. Strictly, the offence is against the market-rules rather than the market itself (fī-­hā, not fī-h). As in the market-guaranty (text 1 section 2) the provision here perhaps applies to any offence concerning the market, not just to personal theft or violence, (one might, for instance, fail to provide support when asked) though the original case from which dispute arose would doubtless be a violation of the peace on market-day.

  3. This sentence seems superfluous, although all the copies of the text are clear.

  4. Asḥar is the ridge between Dhū Muḥammad’s territory and that of Sufyān. Āl-­Faraḥ, according to many informants, is in the territory of Banī Nawf or even as far off as Shawābah; more probably what is meant is a place near al-Marāshī about a day’s journey on foot from al-ʿInān (see introductory essay, part two).

68SECTION 17
If one of the allied people steals [livestock]
1 from his fellow –from the allied people’s flocks2– he insults the guarantors and has no fellowship [in the tribe]. Stealing livestock among the allied people [is fined] four-fold, whether much or little. Whoever commits violence against an animal [belonging to one] of the allied people and kills it in other than a restricted area (maḥjar) or in a restricted area other than during the restricted period (fī ghayr ayyām ḥijrat-ah)3 must pay the cost of killing the beast, the cost of hocking (salabah), a quarter of the [animal’s] price on top of the fair price. If not [i.e. if the animal were on the person’s maḥjar at the relevant time], then [he just pays] the fair price.4 If [the culprit] does not pay [this], he shall have no right and no link [to others].

  1. jalla (verbal noun, jall) refers specifically to stealing livestock. Other forms of theft are described as maddah, sariqah, or nahb according to context.

  2. flocks, qarshah (cf. qārishah pl. qurāsh). Although the copies of text B are consistent, it is not impossible the word should be qashrah, meaning grazing-land (see section 32, below). There is disagreement over whether to read min al-qarshah or fī l‑qarshah.

  3. restricted area, maḥjar (also maḥjūr); restricted period, ḥijrah. For details see the introductory notes on territory and land-use (part two). Around Baraṭ most of Dhū Muḥammad’s territory is open to grazing by everyone, but maḥjar is restricted to use by its owners twice a year (section 32, below).

  4. Reading thaman al-ʿadl. But the intention may have been thammana[-h] al-ʿadl, with al-ʿadl referring to the “honest” adjudicator rather than the “just price”: so, “If not, then an honest man is to set the price of the animal”. The use of ʿadl to describe a person (pl. ʿudūl) is very common.

69SECTION 18
If one of the allied people commits an offence
1 against a protected person (jār, or neighbour: a “weak” non-tribesman) who is under the protection of (mujawwar min) one or more sections,2 his neighbours [i.e. the broader set of tribesmen under whose protection the victim lives] cannot act [to extract compensation or take revenge] until the neighbour from whose [particular] section the culprit comes should fail [to do so]. If [the culprit’s] neighbour fails [to extract compensation] then action against the culprit [should be taken by] any section of the allied people.3

  1. commits an offence, madda. This, like the noun maddah, seems to refer to any offence, whether large or small (in section 31, below, it is used of damaging palm trees). The use of maddah to mean specifically blood‑money, reported by Landberg (Glossaire p. 2681) seems not be known at Baraṭ. Usually it means a blow.

  2. section, laḥmah, usually a unit of the scale of Dhū Muḥammad’s “fifths” or a major division of one of the fifths: smaller units are referred to in the documents as badanah (see text A section 9), though this is not common usage now.

  3. Text A section 20 specifies the order of responsibility in more detail. “Weak” people, like borders and the market, are the common concern of all the signatories; but here the point is made that with internal disputes it is only when those to whom a weak person is particularly linked have failed to make amends that others act.

70SECTION 19
Whoever is owed blood-compensation (
naqṣ dam) by one of the allied people and his [i.e. the debtor’s] obligations among the fifths [of the tribe] cover him,1 the rights of refuge for a nomad or a settled person are according to the laws of the allied people.2 His fellow’s pursuit [of revenge] is his concern (fi dhimm-ah)3 and [if] his fellow has the offence compounded [i.e. further deaths or wounds are inflicted] then he [the original culprit] bears responsibility (iḥtamal). If a wound is being sought from him [i.e. an attempt is made to wound the culprit’s kinsmen or fellows in revenge] and another wound is inflicted on top of the first wound, he shall have [the right to] an escort. Whoever pursues [revenge for] a killing and a further killing is inflicted on top of the first killing, and his [antagonist’s] rights [to protection] among the allied people have expired,4 he [the initial culprit] shall have no right except [to] a companion at his side [i.e. to escort him safely from A to B]. He no longer has right of refuge (qiṭār). As for right of escort (siyār), he has that; and right of escort is obligatory in [cases both of] killing and wounding.

  1. cover him, taḥajjaba-h. As noted in the introductory essay (part three), many friends from Baraṭ are not comfortable with this reading and prefer to take taḥajjaba as being or as meaning najaḥat, to end or finish. Comparison with text A section 14 makes this unlikely: yaḥjib al-malāzim or taḥajjaba ʿind‑ah al-malāzim are found in place of taḥajjab -ah malāzim-ah ʿind al‑akhmās. The passage as a whole is difficult to read, not least because at several points the subject of the verb shifts unannounced –as it seems to in this first sentence.

  2. The malāzim or obligations referred to here are probably those arising from a system of obligatory truces or cooling-off periods (see part three of the introductory essay). After a wounding or killing within Dhū Muḥammad the culprit had the right to refuge with or protection from each of the other fifths for a month in turn, or a month and ten days.
    The first line of this section in the Thawābah copy of text B includes the stray phrase
    madda fī jār mujawwar, obviously miscopied from two lines above.

  3. This is one of the few places in the qawāʿid where shurū' must mean “laws”, rather than a specific judgement. Refuge is a right, apparently, and its duration already specified.
    rights of refuge,
    aqṭār or iqṭār in all our copies of B. One would expect simply qiṭār, so this may well be a plural, referring to successive periods of refuge with different sections of the tribe, probably of a month or a month and ten days each.

  4. is his concern: dhimm-ah here could be dhamm-ah, which in turn could mean simply a wound. This would fit with the simpler provisions of text A section 14, and some readers suggest the word should in any case be dam (cf. Al-ʿAlīmī Qaḍā' qabalī p. 120). The copies of B are consistent, however, and the phrase seems to have been added in an attempt to clarify text A, specifying that rights are already in force which may be annulled. Cases where no special rights are in force at the beginning seem to be addressed below in section 20.
    The original culprit has right of protection for a specified period, as explained above. But those who suffered the loss can pursue revenge against some other member of his group. If in the process they fail to gain revenge and thus balance the account, but instead lose another man, then the original culprit loses his right of refuge.
    Some have wanted to read
    wa-man ṭarada ṣāḥib-ah. Something is missing (at least an “if”), and translation all but requires switching active and passive voices, but the nearest I can get to a grammatical reading is to take wa-ṭard as a verbal noun.

  5. rights... have expired, maḍat sinan-ah (muḍat sinan-ah, as some read it): maḍā must have this “completed action” meaning here, especially since it is followed by the clause fa-mā la-h sinnah. If maḍat had the meaning of “had become effective” or “were effective”, the question of whether or not there was further sinnah would not arise. The rights or obligations (sinan, malāzim) that have ended are those of the initial period after the first offence when refuge can be taken with the fifths.
    After the second offence the question arises of the initial culprit’s status. Text A (section 14) says simply that he has no
    sinnah; text B says more specifically here that he does have right of escort but does not have right of refuge. Abū Ghānim’s copy (Bunyah qabalīyah p. 391) has a few words missing.

71SECTION 20
If the owner of the blood [i.e. the dead or wounded man’s kinsman] seeks his compensation (
naqīṣat-ah) as payment for the blood [rather than revenge],1 the neighbour [i.e. the debtor’s fellow tribesman]2 is honour-bound to pay it in three instalments according to the allied people’s judgement/laws. If someone pursues [revenge for] a wound and an additional killing results, then the right (sinnah, e.g. to refuge) is effective in [the cases of both] killing and wounding. Whoever refuses payment of [cash] compensation for blood[-debts] has no [such] right.3 Whoever has [a claim] against his fellow for killing or wounding and pursues [vengeance] for it, the person who has suffered the loss [i.e. the one now seeking vengeance] has up to three rifles [i.e. three shots] to fire, whether he misses or hits [his enemy], and if he goes over (zād ʿalā) the three rifles, this is excess (ṣabaḥah).4 Whoever commits excess [of this sort] against his fellow has no right [e.g. to refuge], no link [with his fellows, as of traveller to escort] and no [claim to any] obligation among the allied people, and he insults the guarantors of [these] rules/agreements unless he pays the cost of excess [i.e. a fine], according to the allied people’s judgement/laws, in cattle and camels and tashwīf, according to their weighty customs.5

  1. payment for the blood [rather than revenge], sawq al-dam dasm. This is quite a common formulation.

  2. As in section 13, above, the jār or fellow tribesman steps in to provide ḥujbah and takes responsibility as lazīm; the person from the other group, who is seeking compensation, is then his mulazzim.

  3. Compare text A section 14. The preceding sentence seems out of place, or superfluous, and may perhaps refer to killing and wounding that occurs before payment is sought. Alternatively, the first sentence of this section could be attached as a postscript to section 19, and the present section taken to deal with cases where refuge has not been sought with another part of the tribe but the disputing parties instead remain with their own people.

  4. Informants agree that the limit of three shots applies not to the dispute as a whole (pace Al-ʿAlīmī Qaḍā' qabalī p. 121) but to each occasion when the wronged party tries for vengeance. A month later one could try again, but again only take three shots. The amount of the fine is disputed, but experts have usually said 110 riyāls.
    I have not translated
    yasīr in the phrase “whether he misses or hits”. It could just mean “and off he goes”, as it could in the corresponding line of text A section 15. In text A section 9, however, dhī yasīrū seems to mean “as they (usually) do” or “as they should”, i.e. as is right. There is also some doubt among the copies as to whether it should be yasīr or yaṣīr.

  5. their weighty customs, aʿrāf-hum al-ghaṣṣābah. The latter term is fairly common and occurs elsewhere in the present document as well as in Document 8 in the introduction. A common explanation of ghaṣṣāb is ijbārī, “obligatory”, but something a little broader seems needed (see also sections 39 and 42, below).
    Why
    tashwīf appears separately in the last line escapes me, unless perhaps some combination of slaughter-beasts and cloth is involved as in sections 2 and 3, above. Ṣāliḥ Muqbil Juzaylān suggested perhaps this would only be due if the excess shots did damage to the house or property.

72SECTION 21
If one of the allied people offers [to pay for] the blood of his fellow according to their judgement/laws and the owner of the blood [i.e. the man wounded or the kinsman of a man killed] refuses to accept [payment for] his blood,
1 then right[s] and link[s] are recognized, including right of escort. The neighbour stands [in for him] among the allied people.2 Whoever commits disgrace against his fellow [e.g. by breaking an ʿulqah, or formal link], he [the person offended] shall have no claim [to support] from his tribe except from twenty men or less, and [the offender] may be fired on at his house or wherever [his opponent] hunts him down.3 The man disgraced/insulted has up to three rifles/shots to fire [whether] he hits him or misses. Whatever goes over this is counted as excess. Whoever owes his fellow [a debt of] blood and his obligations [of refuge] have expired,4 has [the right to] an escort. If he goes to the land of the state or wishes [to go] somewhere else,5 he has an escort. If he is outside the land of the state, he has [the right to] an escort to his house.

  1. offer, badhala; refuse, ghalaba. ʿAbdullāh Muḥsin Thawābah suggests badhala in line one may mean to throw the culprit out, to hand him over, or refuse to support him against a just claimant. This is possible (see al-Sudumī Naẓarīyah p. 124), but the opposition between badhala and ghalaba suggests the interpretation I have given here.

  2. stands [in for him], yastaqīm. Presumably the meaning is that he can do so if he wishes or he should so ideally: if a man is willing to pay compensation but his antagonist seeks revenge, then one of the man’s neighbours or relatives can provide rafaq. Text A section 13 and text B section 13 have yastaqīm muṣān. The term “neighbour” is reciprocal, applying both to the lazīm and to the mulazzim: one here is ṣawān or muṣawwin and the other muṣān.

  3. claim [to support], ṣayḥah: more literally, “calling [for help]”. In Sufyān and elsewhere I was given ṣayḥah or ṣāyiḥ; as a gloss for nābī, meaning a right to support on demand from other members of the tribe (cf. Dresch ‘Sufyān’ pp. 52-3). In some copies the word looks more like ṣuḥbah or even ṣabaḥah, neither of which makes as good sense in context.
    The
    qabīlah or “tribe” here might be quite a small set of people, a subsection of a “fifth”, as in text A section 9.

  4. Reading wa-qad najaḥat malāzim-ah, as it appears in three copies, not qad taḥajjaba or yaḥjib malāzim-hu. For najaḥat, “expired”, “run out”, “come to an end” see al-Ḥibshī (ed.) Ḥawlīyāt yamānīyah, p. 388, Ḥabshūsh Ru’yah pp. 92, 126. Also section 41, below.

  5. goes to, ḥaḍara (written ḥaẓara in most copies), but the intention may have been akhṭara, which seems to be what we have in Abū Ghānim’s copy, and confusion is even possible with ikhtāra, to choose (ṭā' and tā' are occasionally assimilated). The wording here is almost exactly that of the postscript to text A (section 22).

73SECTION 22
Whoever grants his fellow a truce, and [thus] gets him out of his house, [then] declares himself quit of it,
1 he [the person granted the truce] shall have an escort to his house. Whoever grants his fellow a truce then declares himself quit of it, the quittance [i.e. the declaration that the truce is over] is only correct/valid if [the news] reaches the man granted the truce (al-ṣalīḥ) among the allied people (bayn ahl al-malāzim) or if [the quittance] is announced in the market on market-day,2 If he [the man ending the truce] does anything [to the other party] before the announcement in the market or before [news of] the quittance is brought to the man [originally] granted the truce, then he commits a disgrace: he has no right (sinnah) and no fellowship (ṣaḥb, in the tribe) and has insulted the guarantors of [these] rules.

  1. declares himself quit, ibtarā. A truce or ṣulḥ, like a hudnah (armistice, cease­fire) would usually have guarantors, but either of the parties to a truce can announce unilaterally that the truce over.

  2. The reference here to bayn ahl al-malāzim may perhaps be making a contrast with ṣalīḥīn elsewhere in Yemen: note the reference to bilād al‑dawlah in section 21, above. An announcement at market is reckoned to reach everyone concerned, but otherwise the time-limits set out for jār al‑ṭulaq in section 5, above, might well apply to a case like this.

74SECTION 23
Whoever from the neighbouring tribes owes amends (
taʿattab) to one of the allied people and is summonsed by bayḍā' wa‑khiyār has fifteen days to do the right thing [istaqām, i.e. to accept his obligation]. If not [if he fails to do this], then he is vilified in the market [i.e. the jidhn is placed]. If he enters the market and strikes down the blame,1 then he has an escort and makes amends according to the judgement/laws of the allied people. If he is vilified [i.e. if the jidhn is placed], then there is a severing [of relations with his tribe] by consent, and the severing [of relations] is not ended except by consent, on the honour of the guarantors.2 In [that which concerns amends for] disgrace there is no intervening [for others]3 among the allied people. Dhū Muḥammad, al-Maʿāṭirah, and Dhū ʿAmr [shall] none of them carry [i.e. take responsibility for] an obligation (malzam) for Dhū Ḥusayn: not refuge (qiṭār), nor [claims arising from] a tie of blood and flesh [i.e. from relations by marriage], nor anything else from the neighbouring tribes. Nor is the companion at one’s side recognized4 except that all of them are [responsible] for their sections.

  1. strikes down the blame, yanṭaḥ al-malām. The process was apparently quite ritualized, with the person summonsed not simply coming to market to discharge the claim but camping out by the jidhn and repeatedly shooting it.

  2. The copies of the text are not fully consistent: presumably it should read either mā yunqaḍ al-qiṭāʿ illā bi-riḍā' or mā yanqaḍ... illā riḍā' (pr. usually raḍā). The “consent” (riḍā' in question is the agreement of whoever of the allied people is present at a meeting on market-day (cf. text 1, section 11).

  3. no intervening [for others], mā ʿalā l-dhamm iʿtirāḍ. As section 37 (below) implies, the payment of amends (ʿatb, ʿutūb) for disgraceful action, or dhamm, can be mediated by a lazīm just as can payments of compensation. What one cannot do is support, or protect from claimants, any tribesman who has committed a disgrace and refuses to pay amends (see also text 1 sections 12, 14).
    As in text A section 18 these provisions specifically about the pact’s members seem slightly out of place. Not sheltering outsiders who wrong the market is covered in section 25, below.

  4. recognized, māḍī: more properly, perhaps, current or effective. The meaning is that Dhū Muḥammad have no general obligation to support their relatives from the neighbouring tribes whose own escort or protection of others has been violated. The specific mention of Dhū Ḥusayn seems to suggest that they and ahl al-malāzim may until now have supported one another in claims concerning others.

75SECTION 24
If one of the people of Baraṭ –one of the [“weak”] protected people (
jīrān) who live there and have houses, not strangers– commits an offence [or inflicts a wound] against one of the allied people, he has [right of] escort1 for the length of that day [i.e. the day of the offence] and no more.2 A tribesman who has no dwelling [there] –a stranger, or from the neighbouring tribes3– and commits an offence against one of the allied people has no protection4 and no escort. Whoever protects him or escorts him insults/shames the guarantors, the guarantors of [these] rules, and has no [ability to enter or invoke an] obligation (malzam).

  1. [right of] escort, rafaq: in fact rafaq here may be a more general relation, as perhaps in text 1 section 2 (rufqah) and text A section 5. See also section 28, below.
    But, as with tribesmen who have committed some insoluble wrong,
    rafaq al‑mashadd, escort out of the tribe’s territory, is spoken of as the “last connection” (ākhir ʿulqah).

  2. The implication is that the protected (“weak”) person’s only course of action would be to leave Baraṭ. In practice one can easily imagine a fraction or section of the tribe defending “their” weak person against claims by another section.

  3. Note again the contrast between al-aghrāb (strangers) and arbāʿ al‑qubul (the neighbouring tribes such as Dhū Ḥusayn).

  4. protection, azā (vb. yazī or perhaps yuzzī), encountered quite widely in tribal documents, e.g. Dresch ‘Sufyān’ p. 55. This seems to refer to an informal, short-term intervention. One also finds yutāzī (sic), the noun wazā (Dresch ‘Ḥūth’ p. 78), and wazī as a participle or adjective to mean “protected”.

76SECTION 25
Similarly,
1 one who brings goods to the market is secure if he owes no compensation to the allied people, [whether] blood[‑debts] or for theft [of livestock] or amends or compensation of other sorts. Whoever from the neighbouring tribes (arbāʿ al-qubul) owes compensation has no standing2 in their territory except by the consent of them all after he has cleared [his debt] according to the judgement/laws of the tribesmen. Whoever of the neighbouring tribes wishes to clear [his debt] with the allied people shall have an escort, the escort at one’s side. Whoever owes amends for [an offence against] the market or its roads has no [right of] escort [apart from this] and no [rights deriving from] eating together or [from] the bond of blood and flesh [i.e. relationships through marriage]. Whatever happens in the market is for the people of the market, the allied people, to deal with3 according to the judgement/laws of the tribesmen. Whatever they newly decide [in such cases]4 will be confirmed as a precept (farīḍah) of their customs/usage.

  1. similarly, kadhālik. This seems to make little sense unless perhaps in the first line of this section jallāb al-manfaʿah refers specifically to “weak” market-folk, but in that case ʿutūb or “amends” would surely not be at issue.

  2. standing, saʿah: this means place or position, whether literally (syn. maqarr, a place of residence) or, as here, metaphorically.
    compensation,
    naqīṣah, must here be a general term that includes amends for disgraceful action as well as compensation for wounds, theft, or material damage.

  3. for [them] to deal with, ʿind al-abyaḍ ʿind ahl al-malāzim, cf. Dresch ‘Sufyān’ pp. 58-9, al-Akwaʿ Madkhal p. 32. The most widely accepted interpretation is that al-abyaḍ means simply the honourable man; so the honourable man should intervene, or the right thing to do is to intervene. However, several shaykhs have suggested it also means anyone can act against the culprit and/or that the course of action (perhaps even the amends due) is for them to decide, not limited by law or custom.
    Abū Ghānim’s copy (
    Bunyah qabalīyah p. 393) has ghayr al‑abyaḍ, which seems to be a slip of the pen.

  4. whatever they newly decide, wa-mā faṭarū bi-h. But the intention may perhaps have been maḍrūbah. A maḍrūb is a new decision on ʿurf by a council of shaykhs.

77SECTION 26
If one of the allied people enters the building (
zabn)1 of his fellow and steals something from it, he shall have no brother [in the tribe] and no fellow unless/until he has paid compensation [i.e. returned or paid for the thing stolen] and the cost of the house (ghālī al-bayt)2 according to the tribesmen’s judgement/laws. If the building was locked, the culprit must [pay] in cattle and sheep3 what covers [the cost of] the house. If it was without a door or without a key [i.e. unlocked], he must [pay] half the cost of the locked house, and half is dropped on account of the building being left without a key.4 If someone enters one of the buildings of his fellow and fires at him from his building, and it was without a key or without a door, he must [pay] a head of cattle. The rest of the cost lapses. If [the house] was locked with a door and a key, and he broke the door or pulled [the latch string]5 and fired from there at his fellow, he must pay the cost of the door and the house in cattle and sheep and he has deliberately insulted the guarantors of [these] rules. Whoever sets fire to the house of his fellow or to part of his buildings [or perhaps “to anything within his buildings”], whether much or little, he shall have no right and no fellowship and shall pay the cost four-fold, on top of compensation [for the damage].

  1. zabn may be used of any building, but it has connotations of being set apart (cf. Lane’s Lexicon) and is used in contexts of separateness and defence. A building on its own, with a clear field of fire around it, is a zabn. But an ordinary house is spoken of as zabn when one is talking about differences with the people next door, even if their house is only a few metres off: cf. zābinīn al-ḥudūd, “defending the borders” as an honourable epithet (Dresch Tribes p. 80).

  2. cost of the house, ghālī al-bayt not the cost of the building itself but a fine for breach of the house’s inviolable status. A common explanation in the 1980s was a bull for each door one passed through or forced and a sheep for each floor one entered: any aggravating circumstance, such as theft or denying the owner access, meant the bull was accompanied by 110 silver riyāls.

  3. in cattle and sheep, baqarī wa-ghanamī: a common set phrase in ʿurf. It deserves noting that baqar can sometimes refer to camels, but bulls and sheep are the usual combination of ʿaqā'ir at Baraṭ as elsewhere north of Ṣanʿā’.

  4. on account of, muqābil, The Thawābah text here has ilā muqābil.

  5. khalaʿa, meaning either to pull the latch-string or to reach through the slot in the door and slide the bolt across. Several words are missing around this line in the Abū Ghānim copy.

78SECTION 27
The oath [required in cases] of killing is [from] forty-four witnesses.
1 The oath of [other] claims/damages2 is twenty-two witnesses. This is the responsibility of the one accused or summonsed and of his [fellow] tribesmen, according to the customs/usage of the allied people.

  1. This is said still to be the case in Dhū Muḥammad. In Dhū Ḥusayn, by contrast, only twenty-two witnesses are required in cases of killing, the same as for wounding or material damage.

  2. claims/ damages, naqā', which here must mean any kind of debt, not just a blood-debt for murder, and is parallel to the formulation in section 12. In other contexts, however, naqā' is used to mean specifically blood revenge and contrasted with accepting payment: hence, e.g. la-hum khiyār bayn ghadā' wa- naqā', “they have a choice between lunch (cash amends) and absolution or good-name”. Also, a parallel deserves noting here with section 13, above.

79SECTION 28
[As for] the
manūʿ living in their houses at Baraṭ,1 if one of them commits [an offence] against one of the allied people, he has [right of] escort for the length of that day [and] no more, according to the judgement/laws of the allied people. They are brothers [with regard] to their borders, their territory, their women-folk, and [responses to] offences against their market.2

  1. For notes on the manūʿ, or people of semi-tribal status, see the introductory essay (part one). Again, as in section 24, rafaq here would in fact be a more general relation than escort.

  2. It is not impossible that the two sentences here are unrelated. It seems more likely, however, that “they” are again the manūʿ: although they lack the prescriptive rights of residence and self‑help that tribesmen (qabā'il) have, they are expected to fight alongside the tribe in conflicts with outsiders and contribute like others to collective payments (ghurm wa-jurm).

80SECTION 29
If a dispute
1 occurs between neighbouring tribes and some of the allied people, and the one [particularly involved] in the dispute wishes to cut off [the dispute with the other tribe], then the cutting off is for the allied people to approve.2 No-one can cut off [i.e. end] the dispute between himself and the neighbouring tribes without consulting3 the allied people.

  1. dispute, ḥijjah, cf al-Akwaʿ Madkhal p. 30. This can serve as a generic term for disputes of all sorts, but it has strong associations with ḥijājah and yataḥajjaj (text 1 section 10, text A section 19) which tend to refer to “taking sides” and even to stirring up trouble by doing so gratuitously.

  2. for [them] to approve, ʿalā naẓar, cf section 12, above, but here the phrase may well mean “in the presence of” (Piamenta Dictionary p. 489). Text 1 section 11 says that accepting truce or peace with outsiders is to be decided on market-day by whoever of Dhū Muḥammad is present.
    cutting off,
    qaṭʿ (or qiṭāʿ). Confusingly, this can be used either of severing all ties with someone or of ending a dispute with them. In the line following, the meaning seems to be the latter. Presumably the dispute must be one that has somehow involved the allied people as a whole, perhaps because those particularly at odds with another tribe have already asked that relations with that tribe be severed.

  3. consulting, bi-mawālāt: see al-Iryānī Muʿjam p. 925, and cf. wulā or walā in the market guaranty (text 1 section 11).

81SECTION 30
If a well is [newly] established or a well is damaged/destroyed and needs wood [to repair it], then its owner is free [to take] what wood is needed from
qarḍ or ṭalḥ in common land (faysh) or land off-limits (maqṣūr).1 Whoever loosens the hobble of a riding-animal which is grazing on common land, it is [his] responsibility if [the animal] gets lost or is driven away. Whoever waters [to excess] a riding animal or other [beast] at a distant water-hole, it is [his] responsibility if [the beast] dies.2 Whoever drives a riding-animal away from trees on common land is responsible3 if [the animal] dies. It is [his] responsibility because it is on common land, not on [private] property. The jār is his own witness only in [case of] an offence [against himself].4

  1. common land, faysh; land off-limits, maqṣūr. For the types of land at issue and the nature of the trees mentioned here see part two of the introductory essay.

  2. This prescription has surprised colleagues used to e.g. the practice of badu in Oman, where a penalty would be due for not watering a stray beast. Informants are fairly unanimous in their explanation, however, and I have added “to excess” in brackets to differentiate kindly conduct from malice or negligence.

  3. is responsible/responsibility, ḥamala and ḥimlah. Glaser (‘Arḥab’ p. 5) gives yuḥammil as meaning to impose a responsibility on one’s fellows, for instance by offering escort to a stranger, but this is not common usage at Baraṭ.

  4. offence, maddah. This line, which seems not to attach easily to the one before or after but is echoed in the postscript (section 44, below), is a mystery. Some here have suggested that jār means a weak person, who somehow brings news about lost or dead animals; others that the jār is a fellow tribesman. But one would expect some phrase such as “the owner of the beast”.
    Muḥsin al-Ghuraybī suggests reading
    middah (a period of time), not maddah, and that one can swear to the loss of an animal only when it comes to grief, not retrospectively. Note again thiqah for a trusted witness (cf. sections 13 part two, 15, and 33).

82SECTION 31
If it should be that someone damages (
madd) a fruiting palm tree (nakhlah muthmirah) and cuts some of its fruit, whether much or little, he must [pay] a judgement/penalty of two head of sheep, one old and one young,1 and four times the [cost of the] damage. If someone takes from a non-fruiting palm tree, he must pay what covers it as mentioned [i.e. two sheep] plus the cost [of the damage].

  1. one old and one young, sadas wa-rubāʿ: this refers to the number of front teeth the sheep has (six or four, respectively), and thus to its age. Cf. Piamenta Dictionary pp. 173, 218 for such terms used of camels.

83SECTION 32
If the allied people who share borders [with each other] disagree [on where the borders run], or if [there is disagreement] between them and the neighbouring tribes (
arbāʿ al-­qubul), then borders [are to be decided by] the oath of five chosen [persons from each side]: for borders [between tribal territories], for land off-limits (maqaṣīr), or for [private] property. The laws of restricted lands (maḥājir) are that there are two restricted periods (ḥijratayn) in the year, one from the summer to before autumn, when it finishes, and one from autumn to after ʿallān, when it finishes.1 This is for grazing (qashrah). As for trees,2 they are under the supervision of their owner [and are] restricted (maḥjūrah) at all times.

  1. ʿallān a star-period ending in early October. This raises the question of when summer (ṣayf) ends and autumn (kharīf) begins. Presumably, although the calendar dates differ hugely from year to year, the ḥijrah is declared after rainy periods, which tend to fall around April-May and in about September-early October.

  2. trees, nawābit. Elsewhere the term is used, as in standard Arabic, of plants of any kind, not least of growing crops. At Baraṭ and in the Jawf, however, it means quite specifically trees as opposed to grazing, qashrah.

84SECTION 33
If two men kill one man, then the accomplice bears responsibility [i.e. both killers are answerable]. The accomplice
1 is a [trusted] witness2 for theft. In [cases of] blood [i.e. wounding or killing] one accomplice cannot prove/establish (yuthabbit, the conduct of) the other accomplice.

  1. accomplice, sharīb. Some informants have raised more complex possibilities, suggesting for instance that sharaba can mean to deny one did it and to blame the other man. If one accuses another man and cannot prove the claim then, rather as in Islamic law, one is held responsible and may be subject to amends or vengeance. Others have said sharaba could even mean ḥārasha i.e. incite or egg on the culprit.

  2. [trusted] witness, thiqah, cf. sections 13, 15, 30. In other words, in cases of theft the accomplice can take an oath by himself and should be believed when apportioning blame among the culprits. In cases of wounding or killing, by contrast, his testimony cannot deny or confirm what his partner did.
    In the Abū Ghānim text (
    Bunyah qabalīyah p. 394) the word after thiqah is not sariqah, but no-one agrees on quite what it might be. In the Thawābah copy it is spelled with a sād instead of sin, but there is general agreement on the meaning.

85SECTION 34
If conflict (
fitnah) occurs between two fifths [of Dhū Muḥammad] and a killing takes place, and each of the fifths seeks compensation from whoever inflicted the loss, according to the allied people’s customs/usage, and if those who fought [now] claim ignorance [as to who specifically was responsible], then each party must [provide] oaths from forty-four witnesses that it [or he, the specific man accused] is wholly innocent.1 Then [all] who swear are liable together for blood-revenge or payment.

  1. claim to be wholly innocent, yaʿūd wa-yabrā (classical yabra’, with a hamzah), apparently a set formula. The verb yaʿūd here is said by some to be a colloquial equivalent of yaʿūdh, as in yaʿūdh bi‑llāh, “take refuge with God”; and it is true that dhāl is sometimes realized as dāl. But by far the more likely connection is with ʿāda, yaʿūd and hence the term ʿawd meaning acting together (cf. text 1 section 13, al-Akwaʿ Madkhal p. 32).

86SECTION 35
If it should be that two men kill one man, one of them holding him and the other stabbing him, then [the blood-money for] the dead man is [reckoned] between them by thirds, one third from the man who held [the victim] and two thirds from the killer. Moreover, they took part together in killing him and the one who [owes] a third
1 [also] bears responsibility (iḥtamal) even if the killer is from another group than him in all [other] wars.

  1. the one who owes a third, man thalatha. As al-Sudumī says (Naẓarīyah pp. 91, 132), the term also means simply to take part, or even to intervene as peacemaker. Several people have raised the point that if someone claims to have taken part in a killing, even if he did not and the claim was just boasting, he is liable for amends.

87SECTION 36
It shall no longer be [as was previously the case] that a link [is reckoned binding] on Dhū Muḥammad and al-Maʿāṭirah together. Rather the Muḥammadī is [answerable only] for the Muḥammadī and the Maʿṭarī [only] for the Maʿṭarī,
1 except that if a tribesman from elsewhere2 reaches one of them he shall take him to the nearest settlement.3 Then he [the outsider] is accompanied by both tribes, each [escort being] responsible to his own section. Similarly with refuge (qiṭār) and truce (ṣalāḥ, settlement of disputes) for neighbouring tribes. This is from now and henceforth, where [right of] escort and refuge was [previously] effective for all [or “was binding on all”], and this is the answer (firq) to the ruination of past years.4 There only remains [right of] refuge (qiṭār) of four months and ten days for the nomad and [the length of] a crop-season for the settled person.5

  1. Part of the meaning here, and not the least important part, would be that a Maʿṭarī cannot give refuge to a Muḥammadī at odds with another Muḥammadī, or vice-versa. But why shared recognition of escort or refuge for outsiders should be as destructive as suggested later in the passage is not clear.

  2. tribesman from elsewhere ʿushr qabīlī: cf. aʿshār al-qubul in text B section 38, below.

  3. nearest settlement aqrab ḥayy. Even badu usually explain this as being a village, rather than, say, a camp. To the east of Baraṭ one might have been quite a long way from a village, and it is possible the rule applies only to Baraṭ and al-Marāshī.

  4. A minority of copies have firq wa-kharāb al-sinīn (cf. Al-ʿAlīmī Qaḍā' qabalī p. 133). If the conjunction “and” does belong here, then we should read, “this was [the cause] of trouble and ruination over past years”.

  5. This provision applies to the allied people as a whole providing refuge (qiṭār) to outsiders. Shaykhs at Baraṭ nowadays are surprised at four months and ten days: three months, they feel, would be more reasonable for someone seeking temporary residence.

88SECTION 37
Whoever owes his fellow amends (
ʿatb) must pay it according to the allied people’s judgement/laws in three instalments (thalāthah aḥlāl), and the instalments [are to be paid over] three years. If it should be that the lazīm pays the amends, he gets half of what is paid and half goes to his mulazzim –half of the payment and half the [expenses of] settlement.1 If there is a blood-debt (nuqṭat dam) behind the [debt for] amends, there is no safety or peace between the payer and recipient until [payment] is made in full with the last instalment of amends.2 The first instalment [must be] silver coin; the second instalment and third instalment are [to be paid] from whatever the one who is paying and his tribesmen have to hand, unless they excuse themselves3 at the first instalment and escape [the debt] by oath and cut off [payment] at what they have in hand as reckoned [equivalent to the cash value] by an honest man although [perhaps, “where” or “even if”] a difference had occurred between payer and recipient over amends, tashwīf, murghal, or other things.4

  1. [expenses of] settlement, farāʿah: the term refers here to the coming and going, and hosting of visitors, that settlement involves. It can also mean simply the process of settlement or arbitration. Pace al-Akwaʿ (Madkhal p. 46), it seems not be a plural of fāriʿ in the sense of arbitrator or peacemaker.

  2. payer and recipient, sāyiq wa-mustāq, i.e. the debtor and creditor, as opposed to “the one who is paying” (al-suwāq, below), the man who as lazīm actually handles the payment on the debtor’s behalf.

  3. excuse themselves, yaʿtadhir. Translating this as a plural seems fair, since the oath that the one who is paying does not have sufficient cash for the first payment would be collective. For a case of assembling compensation from cash, grain, and personal goods see Ḥabshūsh Ru'yah p. 55.

  4. Several people have wanted to read this as a difference (ikhtilāf) between the debtor and the man paying on his behalf, but the meaning of sāyiq and mustāq seems clear from earlier in the passage. No‑one has offered a good explanation of the construction maʿa ann, “although”. Perhaps a contrast is being drawn with an earlier system where no-one was called in to evaluate payments in kind.

89SECTION 38 (part 1)
Whoever leaves and sets himself up among [one of] the other tribes (
aʿshār al‑qubul) and enters their fellowship [i.e. asks to becomes brother to them], the allied people must go after him within a period of fifteen days and claim him (yalḥaqū-h) by [giving] rifles of dispute1 to those of the neighbouring tribes (arbāʿ al-qubul) with whom he has sought shelter. If [his complaint] is true and he left on account of neglect or oppression,2 his [fellow] tribesmen must pay what is proved. If neglect or oppression is not proved against his [fellow] tribesmen, nor any other duty, those who accepted him must [arrange for] his return. If someone seeks shelter3 with Dhū Muḥammad or Āl Muḥammad, do this. These are the weighty judgements/laws.4

  1. leaves and sets himself up, shadda wa-awthana. A set phrase which I have not heard broken down in explanation. Presumably the first term corresponds to the classical shadda, to saddle up and leave; the second to planting a marker or wathn.
    rifles of dispute, banādiq al-nizāʿ, cf. section 42, below. Shaykhs from Baraṭ have insisted the form nazāʿāt, which occurs consistently in several copies, is wrong; but a connection with nazʿ in the sense of “removal” (Dresch Tribes p. 109) cannot be ruled out, and I suspect nazāʿāt is actually correct here.

  2. neglect or oppression, qaṣrah wa-ʿathrah: the first means a shortcoming, not doing what one should, and the second means doing what one should not, i.e. sins of omission and commission.

  3. seek shelter, tajannā. Although informants associate this with the word jināyah (crime), they nearly all explain it as ṭalaba ḥimāyah, seek protection. One wonders whether tajannā might not connect with the verb janna rather than with janā. The construction man tajannā fawq-ah is confusing, but for the verb tajannā being governed by the man claiming help see two lines later (section 38 part two).
    Al-ʿAlīmī (
    Qaḍā' qabalī p. 127) reads takhabba', but I have not seen this in a written copy or heard it suggested by anyone from Baraṭ.

  4. these are the weighty judgements/laws, hādhīh [hīy] al-shurūʿ al‑ghaṣṣābah. Cf. sections 20, 39, 42.

90SECTION 38 (part 2)
If someone from one of the fifths [of Dhū Muḥammad] or from al-Maʿāṭirah goes to another fifth, his own fifth must claim him with rifles of dispute according to the judgement/laws of the tribes and appoint two shaykhs, one from [the group] who seek [the absconder’s return] and one from those accepting [him]. If neglect or oppression is proved and they settle [the claim] in accordance with the judgement/laws of the tribes; if they settle and he refuses to return to his [fellow] tribesmen, then those who claim him and those with whom he concluded fellowship must [both] pursue him and make him return to his [own] tribesmen. If his tribesmen do not settle in accordance with what is judged [due] him, they are negligent of the tribes’ judgement/laws and their guarantor is [to be] summonsed and vilified until they settle in accordance with what was ruled against them.
1

  1. In other words, the other fifths or sections within a fifth would place black flags, or if need be jidhns, against the defaulting guarantor and his section, who would thus lose their right or sinnah until settlement was made.

91SECTION 39
If a shaykh when he is settling a dispute
1 between those at odds suffers an offence from the disputing parties, or a wound or a killing, then what befalls him is [to be compensated] eleven-fold. If he issues his ruling between the disputing parties and one of the disputing parties is not willing to accept the decision, the guarantor [of this person who refuses the judgement] must drive [his charge] to honour the decision or to give the shaykh rifles of severance (banādiq al-kasr), which are valued at one hundred and ten riyāls.2 The shaykh and the disputing party [must then] be driven to a weighty expert [in customary law].3 The guarantors must drive all of them [to go].

  1. settling a dispute farāʿah yafraʿ. An arbitrator is farʿ (cf. section 42), yafraʿ is to separate disputing parties by arbitration, and farāʿah we have met already in section 37 meaning the trouble and expense, the coming and going, involved in arranging a settlement.

  2. Giving rifles as surety to an arbitrator is not unusual. What is somewhat out of the ordinary is the provision here that any arbitration whatever requires “rifles of severance” if one rejects the outcome (the costs are potentially severe, as we see in the section following). Dhū Muḥammad claim this is still their practice now, and that Dhū Ḥusayn’s custom is simply to give the arbitrator two silver riyāls and seek a second opinion.

  3. weighty expert [in customary law], marāghah ghaṣṣābah. For the adjective see also sections 20, 38, 42. The noun marāghah is widely attested, and seems even to have been used by Yemeni Jews of their own experts in custom or of custom itself (Ḥabshūsh Ru’yah p. 42), but where the term comes from is unknown. See al-Iryānī Muʿjam pp. 826-7.

92SECTION 40
If the shaykh’s decision was correct, he is paid a hundred and ten riyāls for being right and a quarter blood-money [is divided between] the guarantors and the shaykh, the
lazīm and their mulazzim,1 plus a seven-year-old camel and a subāʿīyah, which is the price of the shaykh’s honour.2 If [the disputing party] was correct and [the shaykh’s] decision faulty, then the shaykh [must] put up with what befell him. He has no [further] claim against the disputing party who gave the rifles of severance, and his rifles return to him [i.e. to he who gave them].

  1. lazīm wa-mulazzim-ah here stand in apposition to the guarantors and shaykh. The guarantor is the lazīm, the one answerable; the shaykh is the one to whom he answers. For a general description of the role of guarantors in arbitration see Dresch Tribes pp. 92-3.

  2. the shaykh’s honour, ḥurmat al-shaykh, i.e. the respect due him. Compare such phrases as ḥurmat al-waṭan (Rossi ‘Diritto’ p. 19, Dresch Tribes p. 80), used of cases where the respect due a tribe’s territory is violated by an outsider committing wrong there.

93SECTION 41
If a guarantor or
lazīm or one of the allied people is summonsed by the white [flag], he must give a rifle of whiteness.1 If he fails to do [what he is required to] and the periods of bayḍā’ wa‑khiyār expire2 and he has [still] not responded (lam yartadd, not answered the claim), then a jidhn [against] him is in order, even if there is no [rightful] claim against him in the allied people’s customs/usage.3

  1. rifle of whiteness, bunduq al- bayḍā’. Opinions differ as to whether this rifle should be lodged with a guarantor, with the plaintiff, or with the dawshān, the “herald”. It signifies a willingness to engage with the claim, to submit it to judgement if need be. As the last line of this section implies, it does not imply that one accepts liability or agrees to make a specific payment: that would be bunduq al‑wifā’ or bunduq al-tasrūḥ.

  2. periods... expire, najaḥāt wuḥūl al-bayḍā’. Repeated enquiries among friends from Baraṭ who know very well how Arabic grammar is supposed to work leave no choice but to accept wuḥūl as the plural of ḥawl, a period. I am grateful to ʿAbdullāh Muḥsin Thawābah for forcing me to take seriously this possibility.

  3. This seems at odds with the rules in section 15. The contradiction is resolved if we assume section 15 deals specifically with guaranty for arbitration and that the present section sets out a more general rule; but the present section itself falls conspicuously between two provisions concerning arbitration.

94SECTION 42
If a dispute or conflict occurs among the allied people and they do not agree on one of the allied people’s [own] arbitrators or experts [in customary law],
1 then all of them must drive the others to go, and go along themselves, to the experts of Dahm, Bin Mulhibah, unless they wish an expert from Dhū Ḥusayn, The weighty [law experts] are Bin Mulhibah or Bin Dughsān.2 Whoever of Dhū Muḥammad, or Āl Muḥammad al­-Maʿāṭirah, or Dhū ʿAmr does not go to the weighty law-experts, everyone must force him [to do so],3 on the honour of the guarantors of [these] rules.4

  1. arbitrators, furūʿ; experts, marāyigh (pl. of marāghah). Pace al-Sudumī, Naẓarīyah p. 81, these are not the same. A farʿ or fāriʿ is any recognized arbitrator; a marāghah is in the nature of an appeal judge, a maṣfā or manhā with whom cases ideally are “cleared” or “finished”.

  2. Bin Mulhibah are shaykhs of Banī Nawf, and Bin Dughsān are shaykhs of Āl ʿAmmār. By “weighty” I again translate al-ghaṣṣāb, which we already met in a slightly different context in sections 20 and 38, above.

  3. force him, ḥawr-ah, chase him up and make him accept judgement, cf. Dresch ‘Ḥūth’ pp. 77, 89.

  4. Apart from the introduction (section 1, above), this seems to be the only occurrence in text B of ilā wajīh-hum rather than fī wajīh-hum. There is no great difference in meaning, although one usually finds ilā used of cases where something is newly referred to guarantors: in some degree that is so here, but the duty of driving others to arbitration is already in place and fī wajīh-hum would have served as well.

95SECTION 43
If one of the allied people sets himself up in empty land (
arḍ bayḍā') where nothing is and digs there a well or builds there [a house], and if someone [then] wants to build next to [his] building or dig next to [his] digging, then the set-aside area1 of the house [i.e. the distance within which the second man cannot build] is the height [of the house] and the set-aside area of the well is [the length of] its well-rope. This is on empty land where no-one has rights, or property, or anything contested.2

  1. set-aside area, ḥaram. In other circumstances there is no formally defined ḥaram, for instance of so many cubits, though houses have their own “inviolability” or protected status (ḥurmah) and should “from respect” not be approached gratuitously.

  2. Presumably this means empty land within Dhū Muḥammad’s territory or within that of the members of the pact generally. Even in the latter case one finds it hard to imagine, for instance, a Muḥammadī sinking a well in al‑Maʿāṭirah’s territory at Wādī Tamr or adjoining Wādī Silbah. There are always residual rights of some kind.

96This is followed by the names of the guarantors, given separately at the end of the present section (part six). These in turn are followed by the witnesses, prefaced with the single line, which also occurs in the postscript to text A: If two sections settle [a dispute] between themselves, without exact judgement (bi‑ghayr qaṣā) or without [a copy of] the code present, this does not nullify/erase the code (lā timḥaq al‑qāʿidah).

97This in turn is followed by the list of transcriptions since 1211 hijrī (AD 1796), and after mention of the 1238 (AD 1822) copying by Ṣāliḥ Aḥmad al-ʿAnsī comes a further note:

98SECTION 44, POSTSCRIPT
The neighbour (
jār) is trusted [as witness] if he claims for a wrong, [but] not [as regards] his property.1 Whoever shames their own honour [e.g. wrongs his own guest or the person he himself is escorting],2 it shall be [fined] eleven-fold according to the judgement/laws of the allied people, in [matters concerning] payment of amends and other things.3

  1. neighbour, jār, is taken by most readers from Baraṭ as referring here to a weak person under tribal protection, and they do not associate it with the line following (cf. section 30, above). Most copies have bi-maddah fī‑h, though Thawābah’s has just bi­-maddah. The verb is read by most people as form IV, adʿā’ not usual in classical (cf. section 3, note 2). The same is done with e.g. Ḥabshūsh Ru’yah p. 83. Almost nobody has read it as form VIII, although the participle muddaʿī is standard usage at Baraṭ as it is elsewhere.
    This line is almost identical with one in section 30, above, and plainly stands by itself. The meaning would be simply that a protected person’s claim to have been wronged by someone must be accepted, like that of a person robbed on the way to market (text 1 section 9). But his claim to material loss (cf. 
    qadr al-fāyit, loc. cit.) would need support by testimony from others.

  2. The plural form wajīh-hum is unexpected, but experts such as ʿAbdullāh ʿĀ’id Yaʿqūb, Ṣāliḥ Muqbil Juzaylān, and ʿAbdullāh Muḥsin Thawābah have all given the same interpretation consistently at widely different times over many years. Note ʿāba, to act shamefully or commit a disgrace, as distinct from ʿayyaba, to shame or insult someone else. Several copies, in different hands, have a cross over wajīh-hum as if recognizing a mistake of some kind.

  3. payment of amends and other things, sūq al-ʿatb wa-ghayr-ah. The meaning is not clear. The reference could be to amends and to damages, even to vengeance, saying that all these should be multiplied eleven-fold, not just the material damages or compensation (naqā’iṣ or naqṣ). Alternatively, though this seems less likely, the reference could be to breach of trust specifically when managing payment of amends for others as lazīm or guarantor.

Table des illustrations

Titre Text B (AH 1211/AD 1796), photocopy: Agreement among Dhū Muḥammad, al-Maʿāṭirah and Dhū ʿAmrفاعدة الملازم بين ذو محمد و المعاطرة و ذو عمر
URL http://books.openedition.org/cefas/docannexe/image/919/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 4,3M

© Centre français de recherche de la péninsule Arabique, 2006

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search