In quite recent times, many have come to acknowledge that Scripture involves Israel in strife with the peoples surrounding the nation’s territory, of whom we tend to speak, loosely and perhaps carelessly, as “The Arabs”.
Some of us are prepared to go further, and to claim that we are at liberty to involve Islam as a whole in those passages which bring “the nations round about” into contact with Israel.
It is the purpose of this study to examine some aspects of the Arab world, sufficient to enable readers to look carefully at Scripture passages, and to elucidate as clearly as possible those relationships which the Bible places before us.
Islam
The word means “submission”, and the words may be added in extension of the concept — “to God’s will”. This religion, or way of life, was begun by an Arabian, but is not by any means confined to Arabs, nor to what we may describe as “the Arab world”. No, Islam spreads widely, embracing the Persians, Pakistanis, Bangladesh, with a considerable number of adherents in South-East Asia. Egypt and the Sudan have long been Islamic, and the expansion of the faith into central and southern countries of Africa has been quite dramatic. The countries of North Africa remain Islamic since those very early days when Berbers and Moors were converted, then carried their persuasion across to Spain, and for a short time, beyond the Pyrenees.
Though all are part of Islam, not all of these peoples may be called Arabs. The faith which all profess was begun in Arabia: the “holy book” of Islam was the work of a townsman of Mecca, who absorbed elements of Jewish and Christian culture, such as came within his experience, and synthesised these, together with a large measure of pagan legend and superstition, into the “Quran”. (The name means, “recitations”: Muhammad himself recited aloud portions of his writings, and this oral repetition is a part of all Islamic learning, no matter where the student).
Fleeing from Mecca under pressure of rejection, Muhammad went to Yathrib nearby — this town was later named Medina meaning “the (Prophet’s) City”. Muhammad’s only military success was a putting down of opposition to himself in Mecca. He died in 632, but his followers, with a remarkable missionary zeal, burst upon the Arabian world like a shooting star, subduing to their arms the nearer desert areas, quickly pressing N.E. to the Euphrates/Tigris basin, then hastening back toward Syria.
Within 10 years from Muhammad’s death, his successors had thrust the Byzantines out of Syria and Palestine, then out of Egypt, which had been held by Rome as part of her Empire since the days of Cleopatra.
Toward the end of the 7th century, the new faith, converting the Berbers, swept along the North African littoral: it was the Mauretanian Arabs (the Moors) who crossed into Spain (their leader gave his name to Gibraltar — Jebel al Taniq), with a pressure northward which was stopped at Tours in 732 by Charles Martel.
At the same time as the entry into Spain, the Arabs of the Ommayad dynasty (descended from Omar, the successor — Caliph — of Muhammad) pushed into Persia, Transoxiana, and the Indus region.
A new culture developed as this Arab power brought together so many peoples of varied origins; both the religion of Islam and the Arabic language became suffused through all these regions, for the translation of the Quran was prohibited. This Arab culture was not imposed compulsorily, and subject peoples were not compelled by arms to embrace Islam, but the price of such religious freedom was the burden of taxation.
From around 750, the Arab predominance of Islam suffered a major setback, and the Caliphate passed into Persian hands, a dynasty called Abbasid, from the name of its founder, Abu ‘I Abbas. The famous Harun Al-Raschid was possibly the apogee of this line — his reign bridged the 8th and 9th centuries: from the mid-10th century onward, due to internal troubles, and uprisings of the Shiite sect, the rule of the Abbasid Caliph became insignificant. The culture became permeated by Turkish peoples, and at one stage (962-1186) the Ghaznavids of Afghanistan were Caliph. Finally, in the mid-13th century, the Mogols overflowed into the Islamic world, taking Baghdad, Damascus and Aleppo, being finally halted at Ain-Jalut by the Mamelukes, the European-born palace-guards of the Eygptians Caliphate. The Mogols were themselves Islamicized, though perhaps only superficially.
Not all was left in the hands of the Persian rulers, and several independent dynasties sprang up in North Africa, the most significant of which was the Farimid (named for a party tracing descent from Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter), who for 200 years refused to acknowledge the superiority of the Abbasids. Spain experienced an especial flowering of culture under the Umayyads, one of whom, in the 10th century, claimed the Caliphate. A Christian resurgence of the 11th century led to the Berber Almoravids being brought into Spain; finally, the Christians under Ferdinand 1 1 1 of Castile triumphed over the Moors in the mid-13th century. The Kurd, Salhad-Din, known to us for his confrontations with Richard Coeur de Lion, was the founder of a short-lived dynasty called the Ayyubid.
It can be seen, therefore, that the Arab impetus, the fountain of Islam, slowed, and Arabian dominance over the Islamic world passed into other hands. Arabia remained important, for the holy cities and pilgrimage destinations, Medina and Mecca, were within its confines, but the Arab world was divided, and eventually became subject in its entirety to the Ottoman Turks (Osmanlis).
In the mid-18th century, the phenomenon of Wahhabism, a reforming and almost puritanical sect of Islam, emerged in the Central Arabian town of Dar’iya, and was espoused by the Sa’udi family, whose . famous 20th century scion, Abdul Aziz II ibn Sa’ud, has made military conquest of the Hijaz and the Nejd (Western and Central Arabia), and who proclaimed himself in 1932 King of Sa’udi Arabia. It is this dynasty in Riyadh with whom the world deals today.
The Origins Of The Arabs
Now that it is apparent that Islam and the “Arab” world are not entirely synonymous terms, the question remains. What do we know of the origin of the Arabs? To answer is difficult, for, in the initial zeal of conversation to Islam, much of Arabia’s history appears to have been destroyed as the works of pagans, and heretical.
Practically all works upon the history of the Arabs give no more than a passing mention to pre-Islamic times, for sources are meagre, almost non-existent. Thus, recourse is had to the works of Islamic writers, whose narrow horizons lead them to claim that all races began in the Peninsula, whence they migrated toward Mesopotamia and Africa. It is surprising that many Western, writers have given credence to this view of history, and it is refreshing to read these words in a recent work-
“There is scarcely any doubt but that, the idea of ancient ‘Semitic’ peoples bursting out of the Arabian Peninsula over whole millennia and establishing civilizations on the borderlands north of the peninsula is mere theory. It is based on no records at all and is, in fact, modelled on the historic eruption of the Arabs themselves in the seventh century and then retrojected to fit an unknown situation.”
Here is another passage from the same researcher-
“. . . the Arabs are bound to be considered in connection with kindred peoples that may be better known. The Bible may well turn out to be a valuable source for the Arabs as well as for other ancient peoples . . .”
The Value Of Genisis 9
The desent of the children of Shem produces, in the 4th generation, a division of some significance through Peleg is continued the line to Abraham, and his brother Joktan is shown to be the father of a numerous people, whom we may identify with some reasonable certainty. It is generally held that Hazermaveth is an indication of the settlement of these children of Joktan in the Hadramaut and the Yemen. To your present writer, however, this has always been a little unlikely, and it is the name of another son, Hadoram, which is consonantally identical with the Hadramaut, whereas Hazermaveth cannot be so readily transliterated.
The traditions of the Arabian people, confused traditions certainly, make a distinction which involves Joktan; let us refer to P. K. Hitti’s authoritative work, The History of the Arabs (Macmillan):
. . . Next, the genealogists proceed to subdivide the surviving Arabians into two ethnic stocks: Arabian Arabs (‘Aribah), and Aribicized Arabs Arabs (Musta’ribah). The ‘Aribah, according to them are Yamanites descended from Qahtan (the Joktan of the Old Testament) and constitute the aboriginal stock; the Musta’ribah are the Hijazis, Najdis, Nabataeans and Palmyrenes, all descended from ‘Adnan an offspring of Ishmael — and one “naturalized” in the land.
Quoting Hitti, again:
The gulf between the two Arabian stocks was never bridged. The age-old division continued to be as prominent as ever, even after Islam had apparently unified the Arabian nation.
(References to the Qahtani are found in all books upon Arabian travel, such as those of Doughty, Thesigen, Philby, etc.).
The Significance Of Ishmael
The parting of the genealogical strand at the 4th generation is mirrored in another parting in the 10th generation, when Ishmael is separated off from Isaac, and proceeds to become a ‘wild’ man and a dweller in the deserts (Gen. 25:12-18).
(There is another parting at the 11th generation, when Esau departs from the family home of Isaac, and Jacob continues the line of promise. Esau, also known as Edom, becomes a dweller in the territory of the Horites, and not necessarily a nomad, but in the Biblical record, he comes to be the exemplar of the whole of Abraham’s “Arab” family, apparently incorporating within his name Ishmael and Keturah’s offspring — it is significant that this brings all of Abraham’s family in prophetic Scnpture under the two heads of the 11th generation, Jacob and Esau.)
Hitti has referred to ‘Adnan as the genealogists’ choice as progenitor of the Arab tribes (musta’- Aribah). It may be noted with some dismay, however, that ‘Adnan is quite a late branch of the tree. Burton, in an Appendix to his Pilgrimage to Medina and Mecca, provides a genealogical listing within an Arabian Free-masonry Diploma, and provides notes to the effect that ‘Adnan may stand at the distance of 40 generations from Ishmael (lbn Khaldun, the Arab historian, claims this to be too low a number) and to be of the era c.130 B.C.
It can thus be seen that the Arabs’ own genaelogies are quite unreliable — Muhammad himself used to say “beyond ‘Adrian none but ‘Allah knoweth, and the genealogists lie”!
This can be contrasted with the Bible’s genealogical tables, detailed, capable of cross-reference, and all unquestionably given for a purpose.
Upon those Biblical tables, we, who are Bible students, will rely. Unquestionably, they tell of the early coming of the Qahtani (Joktanites), who must have been a well developed people within the six or seven generations lapsing between their coming and the beginnings of the desert adventures of Abraham’s children. Natural, therefore, that there should grow up some antipathy between these two stocks. Above all, it should be remembered that Muhammad was of the Hijaz, the Western Arabian area, where the claim to be descended from Ishmael was strongest: on the other hand, there is some evidence the older southern stock moved northward slowly, tending to lose their ancient language, and becoming absorbed into the northern culture, though it is apparent that they retained their pride in their earlier beginnings.
Questions Of Sheba
Sheba and Dedan occur in several genealogies in Scripture, and we should perhaps recognise these as several individuals bearing the same names:
- from Ham, through Cush and Raamah, both Sheba and Dedan
- from Shem, through Eber, and Joktan (Arabian, Yarub ibn Qahtan) Sheba only.
- from Abraham (Keturah) through Jokshan, both Sheba and Dedan.
It is the writer’s conviction that it is not Abraham’s line, but that of Joktan, which is generally referred to or intended in major Scriptural references, such as that of Ezekiel 38, which, as he views it, must refer to the Saudis, as the present controllers of the Arabian Peninsular. The Dedan of Jer. 25, if it is accepted as the ancient trading post in Western Central Arabia, may be of Abrahamic descent, but there remains the problem of the apparently fully intentional process of the eradication from the record of the names of all of Abraham’s descendants, so that they may all coalesce under the one name, Edom. However, the naming of an Abrahamic Dedan in the 6th century is quite resonable, for it is in post-exile days that the above progressive elimination takes place. Dedan, therefore was able to succour the fleeing outcasts of Isa. 21:13, at the time of Assyrian or Chaldean invasion, and is also seen in Ezekiel 27 as a trader in precious cloths, perhaps with the Indian civilistation, or with the mounted peoples of further Asia.
With respect to the Queen of Sheba, this writer is convinced of the validity of Velikovsky’s views, that all that is written in the book of the Kings, and her own inscribed record, point to the person of Hatshepsut of Egypt — there is uncertainty about the word translated Sheba in this case, and there is also some doubt about the capacity of the southern Arabian kingdoms to throw up such a personage at that time.
Recently, a Belgian researcher, Jacqueline Perrin, has published an interesting variation on generally held views as to the kingdom of Sheba — because Greek inscriptions are part of her discovery in this field of research, she must conclude that the kingdom cannot be dated earlier than the 5th century. (Apparently we have here another case of the wilfulness of the archaeologist, whose predilections are such that he must choose ever-earlier dates for his findings, none of which can be made to accord with the only then-current written history, that of the Jews.)
Arab And Non-Arab
What is signified by the word “Arab”?
This word, according to their own understanding of it, should be restricted to the Bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula and the deserts of North Africa. It has this especial connotation, and should not be applied, as we so loosely do, to those who are speakers of Arabic.
We should, for instruction, give some consideration to the position of Egypt, where Arabic is the official language, and a country which is frequently spoken of as an ‘Arab’ country.
If one were to ask a modern Egyptian peasant if he were an Arab, his answer whould be an emphatic “No!” These, perhaps the most ancient sedentary population in the world, had a self-consciousness of their own, and about them there was nothing remotely ‘Arab’. To them, the ‘Arabs’ were the Bedouin tribes of Upper Egypt, Sudan, Cyrenacia and Tripolitania, and the Peninsula. The question would have had no meaning to the fellahin, but to another question, “Are you a Muslim?”, they could give an emphatic “yes!”.
It is probably quite true that, in a very loose way, we have come to speak of the Arabic-speaking world as “the Arabs”, and there is no doubt that this will continue.
The particular aspirations of Gamel Nasser have led us toward this view. For Nasser, until this time came for the seizure of the Canal, had not spoken of himself as other than Egyptian, pursuing the policy begun in the eighties of last century, a wish to be rid of foreigners, and to secure “Egypt for the Egyptians”. But Nasser found or resolved that there would be benefit in pursuing his aims along with other peoples who sought a pan-Arab unity in international dealings. Thus, with Syria, and, later, Yemen, he formed the United Arab Republic: Syria and Yemen, disillusioned, were to withdraw quickly, but Nasser retained that specious title for his own country throughout the remainder of his rule. Today it has been changed, and Egypt is known as the Arab Republic of Egypt.
It is strange, and interesting, that Sadat’s wish to achieve peace with Israel becomes a negation of that title, and is likely to bring down upon his head the wrath of others whose claim to the name “Arab” has more validity than has his country.
Conclusion
This paper has sought to provide a measure of background information for those who are interested in the “Arabs” from a Scriptural viewpoint.
It is the writer’s conviction that Israel’s relationships are with those whom the Arabs themselves call “musta’ribah”, their kindred peoples because they are children of their own father Abraham. So far, the writer cannot see any reason for involving Islam as a whole in any prophetic interpretation, not even as the “false prophet” of Revelation 16 and 19. Rather, he sees a far more significant theme in the blood relationship, and notes its fulfilment of promise in Zech. 14. v. 16ff.
The Borders of the Land of Israel