al-Ḥārith ibn Ḥillizah: Covenant, Tribal Liability and Royal Testimony — Conclusion (verses 68–82)

1. From covenant to the closing case

The earlier passage introduced the covenant of Dhū al-Majāz. The poet now asserts equal obligation under its conditions, rejects liability for the deeds of other groups, and names Kinda, Iyād, Banū ʿAtīq, Tamīm, Ḥanīfah and Quḍāʿah.

The concluding argument proceeds in three stages: reminding both parties of agreed terms, resisting misplaced blame, and recalling events as evidence. At the end, the king is invoked as witness. This is a partisan voice within poetic advocacy, not an independently verified verdict on the events.

2. Verse 68: Equal standing under the conditions

وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّنَا وَإِيَّاكُمْ فِي مَا اشْتَرَطْنَا يَوْمَ اخْتَلَفْنَا سَوَاءُ
Translation: Know that you and we stand equally under the conditions we agreed upon on the day we disputed.

Waʿlamū is a plural imperative. Annanā wa-iyyākum gathers the two parties into one proposition. Fīmā ishtaraṭnā specifies the ground of equality—the mutually accepted terms—while yawma ikhtalafnā locates the agreement in the time of dispute.

The concluding sawāʾ asserts parity in applying those terms. The poet does not thereby formulate a general modern legal theory; he argues that the existing conditions should bind both parties.

3. Verse 69: Baseless objection and the gazelle simile

عَنَنًا بَاطِلًا وَظُلْمًا كَمَا تَعْتَرُ عَنْ حُجْرَةِ الرَّبِيضِ الظِّبَاءُ
Translation: You objected to us baselessly and unjustly, like gazelles passing beyond the boundary of their resting enclosure.

The commentary glosses ʿananan as an objection or interference. Bāṭilan wa-ẓulman condemns it as groundless and unjust. Ḥujrah marks an enclosure or boundary; rabīḍ is a resting place for animals; ẓibāʾ is the plural of gazelle.

The phrase kamā introduces an animal image. Its rhetorical purpose is to suggest a crossing of proper limits, not to offer a scientific description of gazelle behaviour.

4. Verse 70: Who bears responsibility for Kinda?

أَعَلَيْنَا جُنَاحُ كِنْدَةَ أَنْ يَغْنَمَ غَازِيَهُمْ وَمِنَّا الْجَزَاءُ
Translation: Are we to bear Kinda’s offence—so that their raiders win spoils while we pay the penalty?

The interrogative a-ʿalaynā expresses protest. Junāḥ Kinda names an offence attributed to Kinda; an yaghnama ghāzīyahum presents their raiders’ gain, whereas wa-minnā al-jazāʾ imagines punishment extracted from the speaker’s group.

The contrast—their spoil, our penalty—is the point. The question challenges transferring responsibility rather than neutrally asking who fought.

5. Verse 71: Iyād and the load on a camel litter

أَمْ عَلَيْنَا جَرَى إِيَادٍ كَمَا نِيطَ بِجَوْزِ الْمَحْمِلِ الْأَعْبَاءُ
Translation: Or must Iyād’s wrongdoing be hung upon us, as burdens are fastened to the middle of a travelling litter?

Am ʿalaynā extends the preceding challenge. The commentary explains jarā as an offence or liability, not merely the ordinary verb “to run.” Nīṭa is passive, “was attached”; jawz al-maḥmil is the centre of a camel litter, and aʿbāʾ are loads.

Making another tribe’s offence a burden attached to one’s own litter turns abstract liability into a concrete travel image.

6. Verse 72: Disowning unrelated parties

لَيْسَ مِنَّا الْمُضَرِّبُونَ وَلَا قَيْسٌ وَلَا جَنْدَلٌ وَلَا الْحَذَّاءُ
Translation: Neither the Muḍarribūn nor Qays, Jandal or al-Ḥadhdhāʾ belong to our group.

Laysa minnā means “they are not of us.” Repeated wa-lā separately excludes the named groups or persons. The commentary’s essential point is that the poet denies these parties’ membership in his own group.

The source does not give a complete external genealogy for every name; one should not fabricate one. Syntactically, repeated negation lends emphasis to the act of separation.

7. Verse 73: Banū ʿAtīq and the breach of covenant

أَمْ جَنَايَا بَنِي عَتِيقٍ فَإِنَّا مِنْكُمْ إِنْ غَدَرْتُمْ بُرَآءُ
Translation: Or are the offences of Banū ʿAtīq to be charged to us? If you betray the covenant, we are clear of you.

Janāyā is the plural of jināyah, offences. In ghadartum is a conditional clause, “if you act treacherously”; burāʾ means disassociated or free of liability.

The verse connects the earlier are we responsible? questions with covenant fidelity. The speaker rejects not merely an accusation but the automatic transfer of culpability from a treaty-breaker to his own group.

8. Verse 74: The eighty warriors of Tamīm

وَثَمَانُونَ مِنْ تَمِيمٍ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ رِمَاحٌ صُدُورُهُنَّ الْقَضَاءُ
Translation: And there were eighty men of Tamīm, holding spears whose tips signified death and decisive combat.

Thamānūna is the decade numeral eighty, and min Tamīm gives tribal affiliation. Bi-aydīhim rimāḥ places spears in the warriors’ hands, while ṣudūruhunna al-qaḍāʾ personifies their spearheads as instruments of fatal decision.

Here al-qaḍāʾ should not be reduced to a courtroom judgement. The commentary associates the phrase with deadly spear-points; the statement is a forceful martial image.

9. Verse 75: Return with spoils and resounding cries

تَرَكُوهُمْ مُلَحَّبِينَ فَآبُوا بِنِهَابٍ يَصِمُّ مِنْهَا الْحُدَاءُ
Translation: They left them cut and scattered, then returned with booty whose accompanying cries seemed deafening.

The commentary relates mulaḥḥabīn to cutting and wounding. Fa-ābū, from ʾ-w-b, means “then they returned.” Nihāb refers to spoils, and ḥudāʾ to the rhythmic call associated with driving animals.

Yaṣimmu makes the sound seem deafening: a poetic hyperbole for a tumultuous victorious return, not a literal medical claim about hearing loss.

10. The burden metaphor and rhetorical questions

Verses 70–73 repeat one challenge in varying forms: a-ʿalaynā ...? / am ʿalaynā ...?. These questions are not requests for information but protests against unjust transfer of blame.

ExpressionGroupArgumentJunāḥKindaSpoils versus penaltyJarāIyādCarrying another’s offenceJanāyāBanū ʿAtīqResponsibility for treachery

The image nīṭa bi-jawz al-maḥmil al-aʿbāʾ turns guilt into physical baggage: a burden of blame.

11. Verse 76: Ḥanīfah and Muḥārib in the charge-sheet

أَمْ عَلَيْنَا جَرَى حَنِيفَةَ أَوْ مَا جَمَعَتْ مِنْ مُحَارِبٍ غَبْرَاءُ
Translation: Or must we bear Ḥanīfah’s offence, or the harm associated with the conflict and gathering of Muḥārib?

Am ʿalaynā returns to the same rhetorical protest. Jarā Ḥanīfah casts Ḥanīfah’s act as an offence. For mā jamaʿat min Muḥārib ghabrāʾ, the commentary gives two possibilities: the earth or a bleak, dusty year. It does not establish Ghabrāʾ as a modern place-name.

The central claim remains that disputed actions of distinct groups do not automatically become the speaker’s tribal debt.

12. Verse 77: Rejecting liability for Quḍāʿah

أَمْ عَلَيْنَا جَرَى قُضَاعَةَ أَمْ لَيْسَ عَلَيْنَا فِيمَا جَنَوْا أَنْدَاءُ
Translation: Or are Quḍāʿah’s offences laid on us? Are we not free of obligation for what they committed?

Quḍāʿah names a tribe. Fīmā janaw contains the masculine plural past verb janaw, from j-n-y, “what they did wrong.” The commentary interprets the ending as denying that their offence binds the poet’s people.

This is a continuation of the same argumentative chain, not a new unrelated battle story. The recurring question rejects being held answerable for other parties’ actions.

13. Verse 78: Demand for return and its rejection

ثُمَّ جَاءُوا يَسْتَرْجِعُونَ فَلَمْ تَرْجِعْ لَهُمْ شَامَةٌ وَلَا زَهْرَاءُ
Translation: Then they came seeking to recover their animals, but neither a marked ewe nor a white ewe was returned.

Yastarjiʿūn is a plural imperfect in Form X, “they seek to retrieve.” Fa-lam tarjiʿ has the jussive imperfect after lam. Shāmah wa-lā zahrāʾ are contrasting descriptions of animals; the commentary relates them to the appearance of the livestock.

The effect is to show that not even one animal was restored despite the demand. This is an episode in martial boasting, not a general endorsement of taking property.

14. Verse 79: Banū Rizāḥ and Barqāʾ Niṭāʿ

لَمْ يُحِلُّوا بَنِي رِزَاحٍ بِبَرْقَاءَ نِطَاعٍ لَهُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ دُعَاءُ
Translation: At Barqāʾ Niṭāʿ they did not violate the protected standing of Banū Rizāḥ; instead the episode is recalled through accusation and imprecation.

Banī Rizāḥ names a group, and bi-Barqāʾ Niṭāʿ locates the episode. The commentary understands aḥalla/yuḥillu in relation to violating a protected prohibition or making inviolable matters permissible; duʿāʾ is used in a context of protest or imprecation.

These are historical tribal categories, not ready-made equivalents of modern law. The line belongs to the speaker’s attempt to assign or contest responsibility.

15. Verse 80: A back-breaking blow and unquenched thirst

ثُمَّ فَاءُوا مِنْهُمْ بِقَاصِمَةِ الظَّهْرِ وَلَا يَبْرُدُ الْغَلِيلَ الْمَاءُ
Translation: Then they returned with a back-breaking blow from them, and even water could not cool the burning anguish.

Fāʾū means “they returned.” Qāṣimat al-ẓahr is a blow that breaks the back, a metaphor for devastating defeat. Ghalīl expresses burning inner anguish or thirst for redress, and lā yabrudu ... al-māʾ makes ordinary water incapable of cooling it.

The coupled images of a broken back and unquenched burning intensify the psychological and collective cost of conflict, not a literal medical description.

16. Verse 81: An unforgiving cavalry force

ثُمَّ خَيْلٌ مِنْ بَعْدِ ذَاكَ مَعَ الْغَلَاقِ لَا رَأْفَةٌ وَلَا إِبْقَاءُ
Translation: Then, after that, came a cavalry force with al-Ghalāq: no mercy and no sparing.

Thumma orders events in a sequence. Khayl can indicate horses and, contextually, a cavalry force. Maʿa al-Ghalāq is a particular reference within the narrative; the source alone does not justify inventing a full identity for it.

Lā raʾfah wa-lā ibqāʾ is parallel negation: no compassion and no sparing. Repetition creates the poem’s harshest martial tone.

17. Verse 82: The king as witness at the close

وَهُوَ الرَّبُّ وَالشَّهِيدُ عَلَى يَوْمِ الْحَيَارَيْنِ وَالْبَلَاءُ بَلَاءُ
Translation: And the lordly ruler is witness to the day of al-Ḥiyārayn, when the trial and severity of combat were at their height.

In this context the commentary glosses al-rabb as al-malik, “the ruler,” identifying the referent as ʿAmr ibn Hind. It should not be detached from that local gloss and automatically taken as a direct divine name here. Al-shahīd means witness, and yawm al-Ḥiyārayn names the day of a particular conflict.

The reiterated al-balāʾu balāʾ emphasises the ordeal. The poem ends by anchoring its history of tribal service to the ruler before whom the case is made.

18. Key vocabulary and morphology

The following forms clarify the recurring language of obligation, treaties and conflict.

WordRoot / formContextual meaningIshtaraṭnāsh-r-ṭ, Form VIIIWe stipulatedJanāyāj-n-y; plural of jināyahOffencesNīṭan-w-ṭ; passive pastWas attachedYastarjiʿūnr-j-ʿ; Form XThey seek to recoverFāʾūf-y-ʾ; plural pastThey returned

Morphology reveals relations within a verse, but the identities of ancient groups may require independent historical investigation.

19. Grammar: inna, conditions and negation

In annanā wa-iyyākum ... sawāʾ, anna adds emphasis and sawāʾ supplies the idea of equal standing. In ghadartum introduces a condition whose response appears in fa-innā ... burāʾ.

Laysa minnā negates membership. In lam tarjiʿ, lam gives a negated past sense with a jussive imperfect. Lā raʾfah wa-lā ibqāʾ negates two nouns in parallel, sharpening the harsh martial picture.

ConstructionFunctionIn ... fa-innāCondition and responseLam tarjiʿNegation of a past eventLā ... wa-lāEmphatic parallel denial

20. Rhetoric: simile, metaphor and hyperbole

Five images carry much of the rhetorical force here. Kamā taʿtarru ... al-ẓibāʾ provides a comparison for trespassing; kamā nīṭa ... al-aʿbāʾ makes unjust liability a literal-looking load. Qāṣimat al-ẓahr and lā yabrudu al-ghalīl al-māʾ render military damage and anguish as bodily sensations.

ExpressionDeviceEffectKamā ... al-ẓibāʾSimileCrossing limitsNīṭa ... al-aʿbāʾExtended comparisonUnjust liabilityYaṣimmu ... al-ḥudāʾHyperboleNoisy homecomingQāṣimat al-ẓahrMetaphorDevastating setback

21. The poem’s larger literary movement

The poem begins with Asmāʾ’s departure and abandoned dwellings, develops travel and the she-camel, then turns into tribal history, an address to the king, treaty obligations and finally a defence against transferred blame.

PartDominant topicOpeningSeparation and remembered placesJourneyThe she-camel and enduranceTribal defenceHistorical claims and royal audienceConclusionTreaty, liability and royal testimony

The conventional love and journey opening thus introduces a sustained political and tribal argument.

22. Distinguishing allegation from established fact

The poet repeatedly asks a-ʿalaynā? and vigorously denies an opponent’s charges. The text securely establishes that he is advocating his people’s side. It does not independently verify every episode, settle every tribal identification or provide the opponents’ full rebuttal.

Separate three levels of evidence: the Arabic words of the poem, the supplied commentary’s contextual gloss, and external historical verification. The first two can be studied from this volume; the third requires further sources.

This distinction helps reveal how ancient Arabic persuasion combines rhetorical questions, comparisons, boasting and testimony into a sustained public case.

23. Conclusion of the Muʿallaqah: covenant and testimony

The final fifteen verses ask: Can one tribe be charged for another’s actions when both parties previously accepted common conditions? The poet answers with equality of terms, tribal differentiation, recalled battles and royal testimony.

Key terms: sawāʾ, parity; junāḥ/janāyā, offences; nīṭa ... al-aʿbāʾ, carrying blame; burāʾ, disassociation; qāṣimat al-ẓahr, a devastating blow; al-shahīd, witness.

This printed poem closes here. Completion of the seven Muʿallaqāt enables a comparative study of the poets’ different purposes, formal strategies and images.

24. Interrogation, repetition and connective sequence

Tiny particles do much of the persuasive work in the conclusion. A-ʿalaynā challenges one accusation, and am ʿalaynā extends the challenge to another. Thumma advances a sequence of martial episodes, while fa-ābū / fa-lam tarjiʿ uses fa- to connect an event swiftly with its consequence.

ParticleRoleA-Questioning protestAmA further alternative allegationThummaSuccessive eventsFa-Sequence or result

These connectives turn a string of episodes into a cumulative public defence.

25. Rhyme and the poem’s audible cohesion

Notice the second-hemistich endings of the final verses: sawāʾ, al-ẓibāʾ, al-jazāʾ, al-aʿbāʾ, al-ḥadhdhāʾ, burāʾ, al-qaḍāʾ, al-ḥudāʾ, ghabrāʾ, andāʾ, zahrāʾ, duʿāʾ, al-māʾ, ibqāʾ, balāʾ. The shared -āʾ sound maintains the poem’s audible unity across changing themes.

The meaning may shift from equal treaty terms to spoils, curses and catastrophic defeat, but the rhyme recurs. In oral performance that pattern strengthens the sustained argument. The rhyming words are not all derived from one root; their unity is phonetic, not etymological.