Обсуждение:Ухуд

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition

Uḥud (1,405 words), a rocky, plateau-topped mountain that lies about 5 km/3 miles north of Medina, and the site of an important battle between Muḥammad and the Meccans.

Traditional accounts date the event to S̲h̲awwāl of year 3, and see the origins of Uḥud in the aftermath of Badr; variant traditions date it to year 4. Under the leadership of Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb, and incited not only by tribesmen and tribeswomen who had lost relations at Badr (e.g. his wife Hind b. ʿUtba), but also by those whose goods had been plundered, the Meccans resolved to avenge their defeat. A large force (often numbered at 3,000 horsemen) was assembled, and moved north towards Medina; the sequence and chronology of the Meccans’ movements around Uḥud are a matter of some confusion, but according to most authorities they encamped north of the city, grazing their mounts on the ripening fields. At least in part, it was this provocation that moved the Prophet, against ¶ the advice of several Companions, to muster a large force of his own (Ibn Isḥāḳ’s sources put it at 1,000), and move out of Medina. Although they were outnumbered by the Meccans, the Muslims are said to have carried the early part of the battle, perhaps because the topography favoured them. Things then turned for the worse with the fateful decision of the Muslim archers, sometimes numbered at 50 and sometimes at 100, to abandon their position protecting the flank or rear, apparently in order to join fellow Muslims in despoiling the Meccans’ camp. Ḵh̲ālid b. al-Walīd, commanding the right flank of the Meccan cavalry, exploited the break in Muslim lines and overran Muḥammad’s men. In the confused rout that followed, a large number of Muslims were killed, perhaps as many as 65 to 70; among these was the Prophet’s uncle Ḥamza b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, whose death grieved Muḥammad enormously. Rumours even flew about that Muḥammad himself had been killed; in the event, he was apparently only wounded, and the news that he was alive buoyed Muslim spirits enough that they managed to regroup higher up on mount Uḥud. Abū Sufyān did not press his advantage, and towards the end of the day he withdrew towards Mecca; the number of Meccans killed is usually put in the low 20s.

The preceding is a synopsis of events as they are described in the material that was deposited in the sīra-mag̲h̲āzī tradition of the 2nd and early 3rd centuries, and which came to dominate (if not quite monopolise) the tradition in general throughout the classical period. Already in Ibn Isḥāk (d. ca. 150/767) a general consensus had clearly emerged around the sequence of events, even if al-Wāḳīdī, writing two generations later, was still piecing together his account from a variety of sources, as had Ibn Isḥāḳ himself ( al-Sīra al-nabawiyya , ed. M. al-Saḳḳā, ii, 60; al-Ṭabarī, i, 1383-4; al-Wāḳidī, al-Mag̲h̲āzī , Beirut 1984 repr. of ed. Jones, i, 199). Judging the reliability of this material is very difficult. That the Muslims suffered a disheartening defeat is clear enough, at least if one accepts that, several verses of Ḳurʾān, III ( Āl ʿImrān ), allude to actual historical events (see Nöldeke-Schwally, Geschichte des Qorāns , i, 192 ff.; W.M. Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qurʾān , 100, et passim). Moreover, inasmuch as the tradition’s reconstruction of the basic sequence and chronology of events of the Medinan period inspires confidence, the date of Uḥud is fairly certain, particularly since it occasionally is used to date other events (see, for example, al-Zuhrī, cited by al-Balād̲h̲urī, Futūḥ al-buldān , 18). This said, because the Ḳurʾān only alludes to Uḥud—and this not so much to describe or record, but rather to exemplify—full reconstructions of the battle presume the essential historicity of the sīra in matters of detail.

How the sīra tradition emerged is not yet clear; there is no reason to think that Uḥud accounts were exceptional. Accounts of the battle, probably at this point only very fragmentary, were presumably transmitted principally by the descendants of those who participated or were martyred; and these generated fairly prosaic lists on the one hand (see, for examples, Ibn Isḥāḳ, Sīra , ii, 122 ff.; and Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaḳāt , ii/1, 29 ff.), and well-finished legends on the other (such as that of the Ethiopian slave Waḥs̲h̲ī, who killed Ḥamza). Much of the poetry embedded in the accounts also reflects an interest in the experience of tribesmen, both individually and collectively, in the mêlée; and although the authenticity of this too can be doubted—some is clearly exegetical in nature—much may be authentic. Meanwhile, exegetes were concerned to historicise the Ḳurʾānic echoes of Uḥud. ¶ To take only two of the many potential examples: the "two groups" of Ḳurʾān, III, 118 ( id̲h̲ hammat ṭāʾifatāni minkum an tafs̲h̲alā ) are not infrequently identified as the Banū Ḥārit̲h̲a and Banū Salima at Uḥud (thus the commentary ascribed to Mud̲j̲āhid b. Ḏj̲abr [d. 104/722], Tafsīr , Ḳaṭar, 1976, 134-5; al-Ṭabarī, Ḏj̲āmiʿ al-bayān , Cairo 1955-69, vii, 166); and the beginning of Ḳurʾān, III, 121 ( balā in taṣbirū wa-tattaḳū wa-yaʾtūkum min fawrihim hād̲h̲ā ) is glossed by Mud̲j̲āhid as yaʿnī min g̲h̲aḍabihim hād̲h̲ā ... fa-lam yuḳātilūhum tilka al-sāʿa wa-d̲h̲ālika yawn Uḥud (thus Mud̲j̲āhid, Tafsīr, 135; cf. al-Ṭabrisī, Mad̲j̲maʿ al-bayān , Ḳum 1983, i, 499; al-Ṭabarī, Ḏj̲āmiʿ al-bayān, vii, 179-80). In general, it seems that early Muslims did not doubt that some of Ḳurʾān, III, alluded to Uḥud; they may have questioned how much, however. Ibn Isḥāḳ is quoted to the effect that Āl ʿImrān contains 60 verses, “in which there is a description of their battle, and blame for those whom he rebuked” ( Sīra , ii, 106). Aside from Āl ʿImrān, other verses were connected to the battle as well (e.g. Ḳurʾān, XXXIII, 23: man ḳaḍā naḥbahu ).

The tradition having emerged when and why it did, it cannot offer convincing answers to many of the questions that modern historians might be inclined to ask. We shall probably never know precisely why Muḥammad was persuaded to leave Medina by the hot-headed “young men who had not fought at Badr” (al-Wāḳidī, i, 210), nor the precise circumstances and scale of the Muslims’ defeat (seventy, which is most frequently given for the number of Muslim dead, is manifestly topological). What we can discern, however, is how the narratives expressed a variety of interests and controversies. Among some S̲h̲īʿīs, ʿAlī’s bravery is much discussed: he kills a great host of prominent Meccans; Abū Bakr and ʿUmar fled, and ʿUt̲h̲mān only appeared after the battle ended, but he held firm (al-S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-Mufīd, al-Irs̲h̲ād , ed. Beirut 1979, 43 ff; on ʿUt̲h̲mān’s absence, see also Ibn Isḥāḳ, in N. Abbott, Studies in literary Arabic papyri. I. Historical texts, Chicago 1957, 81-2). Less controversial, and fairly ubiquitous, is the elaboration of Muḥammad’s role. Thus the Prophet is endowed with the power to heal miraculously (thus Ibn Isḥāḳ, Sīra, ii, 82); in a vision he foretells his injuries on the battlefield (thus Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaḳāt , ii/1, 36); and in his stern warning that the archers hold their ground he clearly anticipates their eventual failure to do so (thus al-Wāḳīdī, i, 224). In the frequently-cited judgment that Uḥud was a "trial" and "test", in the confusion of which Muslim killed Muslim, and when true believers were distinguished from hypocrites, Uḥud accounts both narrated history and taught enduring lessons, perhaps especially to those Muslims familiar with the first fitna .

Bibliography

(in addition to works mentioned above): A. Guillaume, The life of Muhammad, Oxford 1955, 370 ff

Diyārbakrī, Taʾrīk̲h̲ al-k̲h̲amīs, Cairo 1884, i, 472 ff

Ibn Sayyid al-Nās, ʿUyūn al-at̲h̲ar fi funūn al-mag̲h̲āzī wa ’l-s̲h̲amāʾil wa ’l-siyar, Cairo 1356, ii, 2 ff

Balād̲h̲urī, Ansāb al-as̲h̲rāf i, ed. Hamidullah, 311 ff

Yaʿḳūbī, Taʾrīk̲h̲, ii, 47 ff

Ibn Ḥazm, Ḏj̲awāmiʿ al-sīra, ed. ʿAbbās and al-Asad, 156 ff

Muḳātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr al-khamsimiʾa āya min al-Ḳurʾān, Shfaram 1980, 270

Samhūdī, Wafāʾ al-wafā bi-ak̲h̲bār dār al-muṣṭafā, Cairo 1955, iii, 925 ff

Zurḳānī, S̲h̲arḥ ʿalā ’l-mawāhib al-laduniyya, Būlāḳ 1278, ii, 22 ff.

Yāḳūt, Muʿd̲j̲am al-buldān, i, 144 f.

ʿUmar b. S̲h̲abba, Taʾrīk̲h̲ al-Madīna al-munawwara, Beirut 1996, i, 57 ff

A J. Wensinck, A handbook of early Muhammadan tradition, s.v. “Uḥud”

L. Caetani, Annali dell’Islam, i, 541 ff.

F. Buhl, Das Leben Muhammeds, 253 ff

W.M. Watt, Muhammad ¶ at Medina, Oxford 1956, 21 ff.

M. Lecker, Muslims, Jews and pagans. Studies on early Islamic Medina, Leiden 1995, index.

Cite this page

Robinson, C.F., “Uḥud”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 10 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_7685>