In our note in Arabica 10 (1963): 94-95, we interpreted the Qur'anic verse (Sura IX.29) gatilu lladina ld yu'minuna bi-lldhi ... min-a lladina utu 1-kitaba hattd yu`tu 1-gizyata `an yadin wa-hum sdgiruna as follows: "Combat those nonbelievers who are possessors of a `book' (i.e., Christians and Jews) until they give the reward due for a benefaction (since their lives are spared), while they are ignominious (namely, for not having fought unto death)." One might be inclined to question why this commandment had not been expressed in a simpler, more explicit manner (without any circumlocution); for instance, as: "Fight the nonbelievers until they (surrender and) pay tribute." Our reply is that the formulation of the commandment in the form in which it exists implies, simultaneously, the legal justification for the payment of the tribute on the part of the vanquished, former enemy and the fact that this justification-and we would like to underscore this point in particular-corresponds to a genuine Arab philosophy of law. According to an ancient Arab concept (quite understandable with archaic, primitive social conditions), the victor in a fight who spare the life of an enemy taken prisoner does actually do the latter a good deed. This "good deed"-and this is highly noteworthyinvolves however (and this applies according to the ancient Arab concept to any good deed), simultaneously, a legal claim to a "reward" (a reward that-as in the case of any good deed-the "benefactor" could obviously waive of his own free will).
In the reports on Arab intertribal wars (A yyam al-Arab, "The Days of the Arabs") and related accounts of actual events, we can find a number of references substantiating the above-defined application of the concept "reward for a benefaction."
Akan!, vol. X, pp. 41, 27 if. (= Naga'id Garir wa l-Farazdaq, ed. Bevan, pp. 667, 16 ff.), in the report regarding the Day of Si'b Gabalah (in or about 570 C.E.), it is said:... wa-.adda `Awfu bnu l-Ahwasi `ala Mu'dwiyata bni 1-Gawni fa-'asarahu wa-gazza nasiyatahu wa-'a`tagahu 'ala l-tawabi, ". . . and 'Awf b. al-Ahwas attacked Mu`awiyah b. al-Lawn and took him prisoner and cut off his forelock and set him free on the condition of reward." Moreover, we read in another episode from the same day (Agani, vol. 10, p. 4 = Naga'id, pp. 671, 12 ff.):... fa-lahiqa Qaysu bnu 1-Muntafigi 'Amra bna `Amrin fa-'asarahu fa-'agbala l-Haritu bnu l- Abrasi f i sara'ani 1-hayli fa-ra'ahu 'Amrun mugbilan fa-gala li-Qaysin: in adrakani l-Haritu qatalani wa-fataka ma taltamisu `indi, fa-hal anta muhsinun ilayya wa-'ila. nafsika taguzzu nasiyati fa-tag'aluha f i -kindnatika wa-laka l-'ahdu la-'afiyanna laka; fa fa'ala ... fa-lahiga 'Amrun bi-gawmihi, falamma kanaft l-.ahri l-harami haraga Qaysun ila 'Amrin yastatibuhu wa-tabi'ahu l-Haritu bnu 1-Abrasi hatta gadima 'ala 'Amri bni `Amrin ... tumma inna `Amran gala: ya Hari ma lladi ga' a bi-ka fa- wallahi ma la-ka 'indi min yadin, tumma tadammama minhu fa-'a'tahu mi'atan min-a 1-ibili ... , "... and Qays b. al-Muntafiq joined 'Amr b. 'Amr, and this latter took him prisoner; then al-Harit b. al-Muntafiq arrived among the vanguard of the horsemen, and 'Amr saw him approaching and said to Qays: `If al-Harit gets to me he will kill me and you will fail to obtain what you expect to get from me; would you like to do me and yourself a favor? Cut off my forelock and put it into your quiver, and I swear to you: I shall recompense you'; and he did it ... and 'Amr reached his people. And in the holy month Qays went out to 'Amr to demand his reward (tawdb) from him; and al-Harit b. al-Abras followed him until both of them reached'Amr b. `Amr ... ; thereupon 'Amr said [to al-Harit]: `0 Harit!, what brings you to me?, for, by God!, I am under no obligation to you (literally: you have no `benefaction'-yad, as in the Qur'anic passage-to your credit with me); indeed you had bad intentions with respect to me, you killed my brother and had the intention to kill me'; and he (that is: al-Harit) said: `Nay, I refrained from you; and if I had wanted-since I reached you-I could have killed you'; and he (i.e., 'Amr) said: `I am under no obligation to you'; whereupon he (i.e., 'Amr) sought to avoid any blame on his (i.e., al-Harit's) part, and gave him hundred camels...."
It is to be noted that in both instances described in these two quotations the ransom money (flda') was not paid prior to the release of the prisoner, but later on only-voluntarily as it were-was granted by the released, former prisoner to his former enemy. Thus, in other words, the tawab, the reward, did not represent (in a good many cases) ransom money in its more accepted meaning, but rather a "reward" in its true sense, that is, a compensation resulting from a sense of gratitude so to speak for a good deed, a kind of gift; whereby the payment of this reward is considered however to be a self-evident obligation.'
To what extent the concept of law of the ancient Arabs considers it self-evident that the prisoner taken captive in a fight reward his captor who spared his life and released him (instead of killing him, as he could actually have done) is shown by the following account. The poet alHutay'ah, whose poverty prevented him from rewarding by means of a gift (or "reward") in material form the hero Zayd b. al-Muhalhil al-Ta'i, known as Zayd al-Hayl, who had released him, was allowed to fulfill his obligation to give thanks by praising Zayd al-Hayl in poems; and this was explicitly recognized by the generous captor as having fulfilled the obligation to make a reward. We quote Agani, vol. 16, p. 56:... fa- 'a`tahu Ka`bun farasahu 1-kumayta, wa-.aka 1-Hutay'atu l-hagata famanna 'alayhi, fa-gala Zaydun: aqulu li-'abdi Garwalin id asartuhu atibni wa-la yagrurka annaka .a'iru ... , "... and Kalb [b. Zuhayr], gave his red horse to Zayd (as a price of ransom); al-Hutay'ah, however, pleaded indigence, and Zayd granted him his life and freedom without a price, and Zayd said (in a line of poetry): `I say to my slave Garwal (i.e., al-Hutay'ah)-since I took him prisoner-: Reward me! you being a poet should not mislead you....' " After some more lines by Zayd, there follow poems of praise in honor of Zayd by al-Hutay'ah; whereupon the report says: fa-radiya `anhu Zaydun wa-manna `alayhi lima gala hada fihi wa-`adda dalika tawaban min-a l-Hutay'ati wa-gabilahu ... , "and Zayd was pleased with him (i.e., with al-Hutay'ah) and granted him his life and freedom, because of what be bad spoken about him (in his poems), and he reckoned that as a reward (tawab) on the part of alHutay'ah and accepted it."2 We quote also al-Hutay'ah's line (Diwan, ed. Goldziher, no. 52, 1; ZDMG 47, p. 61) illy yakun malun yutabu fa-'innahu saya'ti tana'i Zaydan-i bna Muhalhili, "since there is no property to given in return [for the favor], my praise will come to Zayd b. al-Muhalhil"3
Also the following line of poetry (quoted in the scholion to al- Mufaddaliyyat, ed Lyall, no. 96, 20; p. 642, 20) shows in a very emphatic way how self-understood it was that a benefaction-here called yad, as in our Qur'anic passage-should be rewarded4: ra'aytukumu la tastatibuna ni'matan wa-gayrukumu min di yadin yastatibuha "I saw you never asking reward for a favor, while others than you ask reward from the one to whom a benefaction has been granted," with the remark of the scholiast (ibid., line 12): hada yadummu, yaqulu: laysa lakum yadun targuna 'alayha l-tawaba, "This [line] expresses blame, he says: `you have no benefaction to your credit, for which you may hope for reward.'" In this last-quoted poetical passage, no specific kind of benefaction is mentioned. But it is quite certain that the intention is directed to the benefaction par excellence, that is: the sparing of the life of a prisoner, as this is expressly stated in the line (al-Mufaddaliyyat, no. 96, 7; p. 642, 12) to which the above line is quoted (in the scholion) as a parallel: ra'atni ka- 'ufhusi l-gatati du'abata wa-ma massaha min mun`imin yastatibuha, "She (my she-camel) saw me with my temples bald and smooth as the place where the sand-grouse lays: but their baldness is not due to a captor who-having cut off my forelock-did me a favor for which he could ask reward" (but my baldness is due to the friction of the helmet).5
Whereas in the (non-Islamic) examples mentioned by us above the good deed consists in the pardon granted by an individual according to his discretion to an individual who has been vanquished and taken captive by him, in the Qur'an verse discussed by us the good deed, and hence also the "reward" (gizyah = gaza' = tawab) necessarily following it according to ancient Arab common law have become a practice normally occurring and that must be performed: the life of all prisoners of war belonging to a certain privileged category of nonbelievers must, as a rule, be spared, All must be subject to pardon-provided they grant the "reward" (,~izyah) to be expected for an act of pardon (sparing of life).
Early Islamic tradition expressly states that the gizyah (which literally certainly means "reward") is to be paid for the sparing of the lifer of the vanquished enemies (hagn al-dima', cf. n. 2). We refer to Tabari, Annales, 1, 2017, 3 ff. (year 12 A.H.): fa-qabila min-hum Halidun-i 1-gizyata wa- kataba la-hum kitaban f -hi: Bi-smi lldhi l-rahmani l-rahi mi. Min Halidi bni 1-Walidi li-bni Saluba l-Sawadiyi wa-manziluhu bi-gati'i l-Furdti: Innaka aminun bi-'amani illahi-id haqana damahu bi-'i`ta'i l-gizyati- wa-qad a`tayta an nafsika wa-'an ahli hargika wa-Gaziratika wa-man kana ft qaryatayka Banigya wa-Barusma alfa dirhamin fa-qabiltuha minka ... , "and I-Ialid accepted the gizyah from them and wrote for them a document concerning this: `In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. From Halid b. al-Walid to Ibn Saluba, the man of the Sawad, whose residence is on the shore of the Euphrates: You are safe tinder the protection of God'-since he (i.e., Ibn Saluba) prevented the shedding of his blood (saved his life) by giving the gizyah-`since you have given for yourself and for your people ... thousand drachmas, and I have accepted them from you....' "
The following passage (Tabari, Annales, 1, 2631, 7 ff.; year 21 A.H.), in which a vanquished enemy offers, in addition to the payment of the gizyah, a reward for the sparing of his life to the man who captured him, may be compared with the phrase id haqana damahu bi-'i`ta'i l-gizyati in the passage quoted above as well as with the Qur'anic phrase al-gizyatu ,an yadin "the reward for a benefaction":... fa-'asarahu wa-'ahada silahahu ... fa-gala dhabu bi ila amirikum hatta usalihahu `ala hadihi l- ardi wa-'u`addiya ilayhi l-gizyata wa-salni anta an isarika ma .i'ta waqad mananta `alayya id lam tagtulni ... , "... and he took him prisoner and took his armor ... and he (i,e., the prisoner) said: `Go with me to your commander so that I make peace with him by (making him owner of) this land and may (permanently) pay him the gizyah; and also you, demand of me whatever you want for your taking [me] prisoner; for you have been gracious to me, since you did not kill me...."'
Finally, we note that there are certain hints in ancient Arabic literature that the foreigner under protection of Islam-that is, the Christian or Jew or member of any other privileged group-was marked by the missing forelock, which had been cut off; that means that he was distinguished by that mark, which in early Arab times goes with the obligation of the prisoner of war to pay "reward" for having been freed and not having been killed. We refer to the line of Garir (Naga'id Garir wa-l- Farazdaq, ed. Bevan, no. 50, 43; p. 342, line 3): wa-tabitu ta.rabu `inda kulli mugassasin hadili 1-anamili wakifi l-mi`sari, "And you [o Farazdaq] are wont to spend `your nights drinking at [the tavern of] every one whose forelock has been cut off, whose finger-tips are moist, and whose winepress is dripping." The scholion (ibid., p. 342, line 5) remarks on muqassas explicitly: ay: dimmiyun qad qussat nasiyatuhu "mugassas: i.e., [the] dimmi (protected foreigner, Jew or Christian) whose forelock has been cut off." Indeed, the reference to the producers and sellers of wine can at this period only relate to the ahl al-dimmah in the accepted Islamic sense, that is, Jews, Christians, and the like.
We cannot conclude this note without discussing the interpretation of the Qur'anic passage under discussion which M. J. Kister has propounded in Arabica 11 (1964): 272-78. He translates the verse (p. 278): ". . . fight them ... until they pay the gizya out of ability and sufficient means, they (nevertheless) being inferior." He assumes that yad, or can yadin, means "wealth," or "sufficient resources for spending," or "on the expenses, means, or resources (of someone)," respectively, basing this interpretation of the concept on numerous literary, lexicographical, and exegetical sources, which are only in part available to us. For the sake of clarity we quote some of Kister's statements in extenso (pp. 276 f.): "The expression `an zahri yadin is interpreted by al-Zamahgari in al-Fa'iq [III, 228, ed. Cairo 1945-48]: it is explained as can zahri in'amin mubtadi'an min gayri mukafa'atin 'ala sani`in. The phrase: Alta 1-gazila an zahri yadin would be rendered thus: he gave plenty, giving it gratuitously, i.e., without any favour being granted to him.... Two other expressions are recorded by al-Zamahgari in Asas and by Ibn Manzur in L. 'A.: Fulanun ya'kulu an zahri yadi fulanin ida kana huwa yunfiqu `alayhi and al- fugara'u ya'kuluna `an zahri aydi l-nasi. It is evident that the phrase denotes to live on the expenses, means or resources of somebody."
We quote here the entire passage from Al-Zamahsari's Fa'iq (III, 248), from which Kister starts in his discussion of the concept `an yadin: Talhatu (rd'h)-gala Qabisatu: ma ra'aytu ahadan a`ta 1-gazila `an zahri yadin min Talhata bni 'Ubaydi-llahi. Al-yadu: al-ni'matu; ay: an zahri in`amin mubtadi'an min gayri an yakuna mukafa'atan `ala sani`in. This must be interpreted as follows: "Talhah b. Ubayd Allah: Qabisah said: I have never seen anyone who distinguished himself more in squandering bountiful gifts, out of [pure] charity (,an yadin, see below), than Talhah b. 'Ubayd Allah. Al-yad: `the benefaction,' that is, [`an yadin means:] out of (pure) charity, spontaneously, not as a reward for a favor (received from the other person)." Similarly, the quotation from Zamahsari's Asas and from Lisdn al-Arab is to be interpreted: "A eats (or: lives) on the charity of B, when he (i.e., B) pays his (i.e., A's) living expenses; and: The poor eat (or: live) on the charity of the people."
Moreover, Kister (p. 276, at the bottom) refers to al-Sarif al-Radl's explanation of a`taytu fulanan kada an zahri yadin by `an-imtina'in wa- quwatin: lam u'tihi an hifatin wa-dillatin, using also this definition of the expression as proof for his contention that yad in 'an (zahri) yadin means "means or resources (of somebody)." We understand also here an (zahri) yadin means "means or resources (of somebody)." We understand also here can zahri yadin as expressing the idea "I have given someone that and that gift out of [pure] charity," that is, "not out of fear of him, since he did me a favor (e.g., since he spared my life), a favor for which he might exact a reward from me," rather "I have given someone a gift, without owing him anything, that is: out of a position of strength and independence, just because I possess sufficient means (that is, a surplus of possessions), and since I am inclined to be charitable." In this connection we may also refer to the line of Durayd b. al-Simmah (al-Asma`iyyat, ed. Ahlwardt, no. 24, 3) quoted by Kister (p. 277 at the bottom): a'adila inna l-ruz'a ft i mitli Halidin wa-la ruz'a f tma ahlaka l-mar'u an yadi. Kister interprets this as follows: "0 reprover, misfortune is in (the death of a man) like Halid, misfortune is not in what a man squanders (by lavish spending) out of plenty." Kister adds to this interpretation the remark: "Yad in this verse explicitly denotes wealth, or sufficient resources for spending (on the poor and needy), or generous distribution (of gifts)." For us the sense of the line is again: ". . . but to spend one's means in practising (genuine) charity cannot be considered a loss."
Also here, yad is used in the pregnant sense described above: "charity," that is, "generosity practiced with an entirely altruistic intention, based on social independence and wealth (see below), not caused, for example, by the fact that somebody has laid the other person under obligation."
By the fact that the type of "giving" characterized by the term `an yadin (or: an zahri yadin) is in the philological sources quoted above defined (certainly correctly) as being performed spontaneously (mubtadi'an), not representing a compensation (mukafa'ah) for a favor, it is consciously conceived as the contrast of that type of granting money or other valuables to another person in which the benefit granted the other person is granted in discharge of an obligation (and thus, as it were, is granted under duress, an hifatin wadillatin, see above), namely-in the passages quoted by us-as a reward for the sparing of the life of the person granting the benefit by the person to whom the benefit is granted, that is, in the Qur'anic passage under discussion: al-gizyatu an yadin.
Moreover, in connection herewith, an yadin in the Qur'anic passage and an (zahri) yadin in the other category of passages (including the line by Durayd b. al-Simmah quoted above) are from the formal-phraseological point of view of a quite different nature. In the Qur'anic verse, 'an yadin (`an zahri yadin here would not be possible) is a necessary complement of the verbal noun al-gizyah: gazahu an yadin, "he compensated him for a favor" (cf., e.g., the sentence wa-salnt can isarika ma gi'ta in the quotation from Tabari, Annales, 1, 2631, 7 ff.). In the other category, `an (zahri) yadin is, from the syntactical point of view, a (not absolutely indispensable) complement to the sentence as a whole: "he gave gifts out of (or: as) charity."
The granting of benefits and favors to another person on the basis of social independence-out of a charitable and gentle attitude toward one's fellowmen, and not in discharge of a duty (as in the Qur'anic verse and similar passages)-represents a frequent motif of early Arabic sources that appears under a number of variations. Cf., for example, Hamasah, p. 516, v. 4: inna min-a 1-hilmi dullan anta `arifuhu wa-l-hilmu an qudratin fadlun min al-karami, in the translation of Ruckert (Die Volkslieder der Araber, 11, p. 19; no. 418, v. 5): "Eine Schmach ist Lindigkeit, du weisst es wohl; aber Lindigkeit aus Kraft ist ehrenvoll." Furthermore, Diwan al- Farazdaq, ed. Boucher, p. 173, 13: al-`dsib(u) 1-harba hand tastaqida lahu bi-l-ma3`raftyyati wa-l-`aft ida gadara, which must be interpreted (with Boucher, vol. 11, p. 521, and n. 2, against his alternative interpretation of qadara in the text of his translation itself): "Il dompte la guerre et la soumet a son epee, it pardonne lorsqu'il pourrait (punir)." Cf. also, for example, Abu 1-,Atahiyah, Diwan, p. 58, 4: wa-'afdalu l-`afwi `afwun `inda maqduratin, "and the best pardon is the pardon which one grants out of a position of strength"; and so on. Cf. also the saying, frequently occurring in early historical sources: malakta fa-'asgih, "you have conquered (or: become possessor), so be forbearing" (frequently used with respect to a vanquished enemy or a prisoner of war). With sayings like these we must also compare the expression al-sadaqatu can ginan, to which Kister, l.c., p. 276, ult., refers. This expression represents a wellknown hadat: hayru 1-sadagati can zahri ginan (see, e.g., Buhari, Sahih, ed. Krehl, vol. 1, p. 361, ult.). From the affinity of this saying with the phrase a'taytu fulanan kada can zahri yadin (see above) one should by no means conclude that yad itself (in the contexts under discussion) is synonymous with ginan. The idea implied in hayru 1-sadagati can zahri ginan is that alms should not be given grudgingly-which is possibly the case if the almsgiver possesses only insufficient means, and is not socially independent-but they should preferably be given on the basis of sufficient means, so that an act of genuine charity is performed.
Kister's interpretation of the Qur'anic passage under discussionfight them until they pay the gizyah out of ability and sufficient means, they (nevertheless) being inferior"-is based on his explanation of yad, that we are unable to accept (see above). But other objections may be raised against this interpretation of the verse. It is certainly correct, as Kister states, that the amount of the gizyah to be paid was not to go beyond the payer's economic ability (`ala qadri l-tagah)-a humane principle which in early Islamic time was generally applied and not only with respect to the gizyah. It seems, however, strange that this point should have been mentioned-more exactly, implied-in the basic pronouncement itself by which the payment of the gizyah was imposed on the dimmis. We would have expected that this point-if it was altogether found necessary to mention it-would have been added in a second, independent sentence, after the sentence by which the command, that is: the imposition of the gizyah, was proclaimed.
Also the addition of the clause wa-hum sagiruna, "while they are inferior," does not make good sense in the context of Kister's interpretation of the verse as a whole. Kister, indeed, to make the phrase more acceptable, supplies a word: "nevertheless." However, this word does not help remove the incompatibility of the phrase wa-hum sagiruna with the preceding phrase ". . . until they pay the gizya out of ability and sufficient means." Moreover, Kister's interpretation does not take into account the meaning of the word gizya which after all occurs only in this verse and should be considered as connected with the meaning of the verse as a whole.
A question necessarily to be treated in connection with the Qur'anic concept al-gizyatu an yadin "the reward [due] for a benefaction," is the semantic development of yad, literally "hand," into the meaning of "benefaction," and-in its use in the Qur'anic verse under consideration and in many other passages-more specifically into the meaning of "benefaction constituted by the sparing (saving) of somebody's life." As we already remarked, "the saving (rescuing)-or also: the sparing [by a conqueror]-of somebody's life" is the "benefaction" par excellence in early Arab society and is frequently characterized as such by ordinary terms for "benefaction," as, e.g., ni`mah, nu`ma (cf. also, for example, Diwan Imri' il-Qays, ed. Ahlwardt, no. 23, 2).
We quote the following passage from the Diwan of 'Antarah (ed. Ahlwardt, no. 8, 1-3): (1) Naha farisu 14ahbd'i wa-l-haylu gunnahun 'ala farisin bayna 1-asinnati muqsadi (2) wa-lau la yadun nalathu minna la-asbahat siba`un tahada gilwahu gayra musnadi (3) fala takfuri l-nu`ma wa-'atni bifadliha wa-la ta'manan ma yuhditu llahu ft i gadi: "(1) While the horses [were racing along, because of their speed] leaning to one side, the rider of the light-colored mare took the direction toward a horseman who, surrounded by spears, was threatened by outright death. (2) And if a hand of ours had not taken hold of him, it would have happened that beasts would have passed on his limbs one to another, and he would not have been buried. (3) Do not, therefore, deny the benefaction (or: do not be ungrateful for the favor) and acknowledge (or: praise) its excellence and do not feel safe from what God may do tomorrow!"
In our opinion, the phrase (in line 2) wa-lau la yadun nalathu minna can not only be interpreted, on the basis of the literal meaning of its component elements, by "and if a hand of ours had not taken hold of him," but also by "and if a benefaction of ours had not reached him," or "and were it not for a benefaction granted him by us." That is, the term yad (in the phrase nalathu yadun minna, "a hand of ours got hold of him") would be used here synonymously with the term nu`ma, "favor, benefaction," occurring in the subsequent line (line 3) and referring to the action described by the words nalathu yadun minna. We also maintain that what is uppermost in the mind of the poet and what he primarily intends to express, is the idea of "a favor granted," or, more specifically, "the favor granted the horseman in question by rescuing his life." We furthermore assume that the literal sense of the sentence: "a hand of ours reached for him and got hold of him," is likewise expressed by it, but is of minor importance; that is, this literal sense is not primarily intended by the speaker (the poet). What we are dealing with here is "the simultaneous emergence in the mind of two distinct (interrelated) aspects of a notion," a semantic mechanism observed by us and described in our Studies in Arabic and General Syntax (Publications de l'lnstitut Francais d'Archeologie Orientale du Caire. Textes arabes et etudes islamiques: XI [Cairo, 1953]), pp. 139-50. In this specific semantic mechanism, the more concrete one of the two distinct aspects of this type of notion, that is-in the case here under discussion-the linguistically expressed idea of "the stretched hand which reaches out for the warrior whose life is threatened," is of minor importance and is apt to get lost completely, so that only the principally intended aspect of the notion, which is not linguistically expressed-that is, the idea of "the benefaction granted the threatened warrior through the rescue of his life"-remains. A result of this development, which can be clearly sensed in 'Antarah's phrase walau la yadun nalathu minna (see above), was that the word yad ("hand") could now serve also as an expression for the (abstract) concept of "benefaction granted somebody by saving (or: sparing) his life." Finally, yad could serve as an expression for "benefaction, favor" generally, regardless of the specific character of the benefaction. This final development in the meaning of yad is based on the fact that "the benefaction granted someone by saving (or: sparing) his life" is in early Arab society the "benefaction" par excellence, and, in a sense, corresponds to the sporadic use of ni'mah, nu`ma and synonymous words for "benefaction" in the specific meaning of "benefaction granted someone by saving (or: sparing) his life."
The situation described in 'Antarah's lines quoted above: "someone's hand reaching out for a man surrounded by enemies, in order to save his life," was certainly a frequently occurring event in early Beduin heroic society; and since the term "hand" is the central concept of this process, yad was from the outset liable to be associated with the concept of "bene faction granted someone by saving (or: sparing) his life" and thus with the concept of "benefaction, favor" generally.
A parallel to this semantic development (and also based on the semantic mechanism referred to above) we recognize in the development of the term bald, as described by us in Der Islam 35 (1959): 19 ff. Bala2 basically expresses the concept of "exertion (in battle), steadfastness, fortitude." But as part of phrase like bala'u fulanin 'inda fulanin "A's exertion in battle in the service (or: for the sake) of B," bald' was apt to acquire the sense of "favor granted someone by another one by his defending him or his fighting for him," and finally bald' adopted the sense of "benefaction" generally, without the idea of a warlike exertion implied (for details see l.c.).
NOTES
1. The same conclusion may be drawn from another episode from the report on the Day of Si`b Gabalah to which we only refer without quoting it in extenso; see Naga'id, p. 675, lines 2-3, 5-7, 14-17, p. 676, line 1 ; cf. also p. 675, line 10. A further interesting instance of this type-connected with the Day of Zubalah and involving the famous Bistam b. Qays-related in Naga'id, p. 681, see especially lines 5-8.
2. Cf. also ibid., p. 57, the words ascribed to al-Hutay'ah: fa-qad hagana dami wa'atlagani bi-gayri fida'in fa-lastu bi-kafirin ni'matahu abadan ". . . and he (i.e., Zayd) spared my blood and released me without ransom money, and I shall never forget his good deed." This identification of haqn al-Jima', "preventing (or: causing to cease) bloodshed (as a consequence of war or revenge)," as ni'mat-, "favor, benefaction," is frequently found; cf. also, e.g., the line of al- Farazdaq in Naga'id, p. 740, 7: haganna dima'a l-Muslimina fa-lasbahat land ni'matun yutnd bihafi l-mawasimi, "we took care that the shedding of the blood of the Muslims was stopped, and we were credited with this as a benefaction which was praised at the fairs (taking place at the festival seasons)." This hagn al-dimd'-in these passages designated as ni'mat(= yad), "favor, good deed," which necessitated some reward-was of course the main problem for those nonMuslims who did not adopt Islam but did at the same time (in most cases) not fight unto death (therefore being daigrun, "ignominious"). Cf., e.g., the following passage referring to the capitulation of the Jews of Haybar and Fadak, Ibn Hisam, Sirah, p. 764, 5; moreover line 8, which we quote here:... fa-lamma sami`a bi-him ahlu Fadaka qad sana`u ma sana`u ba`atu ila Rasuli-ilahi sl`m yas'alunahu an yusayyirahum wa'-an yahgina dima'ahum wa-yuhallu lahu l-amwala ......... and when the people of Fadak heard of them (i.e., of the people of Haybar), what they had done, they (i.e., the people of Fadak) sent to the Messenger of God asking to deport them and to spare their blood, and they would leave to him (as a reward) their possession ..." (cf. also al-Baladuri, Ansab al-agraf, vol. 1, ed. M. Hamidullah [Cairo, 1959], p. 352, 5).
3. In Agani, vol. 16, p. 56, We find instead of malun yutabu the following reading: mall bi-'atin ("my property is not coming"), which we may consider as a secondary-more readily understood-reading (quasi a lectio facilior).
4. How self-understood indeed it was that the "benefaction" (ni`mat- or yad) effected by freeing a prisoner be rewarded by the latter, we recognize also from the fact that the word for "benefaction" or "doing a benefaction" in this context has almost acquired itself the meaning of "reward" or of "acquiring reward," respectively. This semantic development already perceptible in our above quotations becomes clearly apparent from the following quotation (Naga'id, p. 1063, 10-11): fa-sa'ala Laqitun `Amiran an _yutliga lahu ahahu fa-gala Lagitun amma ni'matifa-qad wahabtuha laka wa-lakin ardi ahi wa-halifi Iladayni .ttaraka fihi fa-ga`ala Laqitun li-kulli wahidin mi'atan min-a l-ibili fa-radiya ... , "and Lagit asked `Amir that he free for him his brother, and Lagit said: `As to my "benefaction," I give it to you (that is: I waive it), but you should satisfy my brother and my confederate who participated in the matter...." It should be noted that in the parallel tradition of Agani, ni`mati, "my benefaction," is replaced by hissati, "my share," which, of course, seems to be far more in agreement with wahabtuha laka than ni `mati, but is certainly a secondary reading.
5. We quote the following sentences from the commentary to this line, which explain the phrase frequently used in contexts of this kind (See some of the above-quoted passages), gazza nasiyatahu ("he cut off his forelock"):... fa- yaqula lam yakun dahabu fa`ri li-'anni usirtu fa-guzzat nasiyati 'ala talabi l- tawabi; wa-kadalika kanu yafaluna: ida asara ahaduhum ra ulan . arlfan gazza ra'sahu aw farisan gazza nasiyatahu 'ala talabi l-tawbi wa-'ahada min kinanatihi sahman li-yafhara bi-dalika, ". . . and he says: The disappearance of my hair was not for the reason that I have been taken prisoner and that my forelock was cut off to enable [the captor] to ask for a reward; one used to do like that: if someone captured a nobleman, he sheared his head; or [if he captured] a horseman, he cut off his forelock and took an arrow from his quiver in order to boast with that" (there follows a line by al-Hutay'ah as an illustration of the lastmentioned detail). Moreover, we quote the following passage concerning an episode from the year 11 A.H. (Tabari, Annales, 1, 2007, 10 ff.): fa-gala l-mawtu hayrun mimmd antum fihi guzza nawasiyakum hand ka-'annakum qawmun qad wahabtum li-llahi anfusakum fa-'an'ama 'alaykum fa-bu'tum bi-ni`amihi (variant: bi-ni`mati lldhi) la'allahu an yansurakum 'ala ha'uld'i l-zalamati fa- gazzu nawasiyahum wa-ta'agadu wa-tawataqu an la yafirra ba'duhum `an ba'din, "and they (i.e., the Kindites in the wars of the Riddah, the defection from Islam) said: `Death is better than your condition. Cut off your forelocks so that you appear like people who have dedicated themselves to God-so He will bestow His grace on you (i.e., will grant you victory and life) and you will acknowledge His favor (or: you will win His favor?); maybe He will grant you victory over these evildoers.' And they cut off their forelocks and obligated themselves mutually not to flee from one another," in this passage the act of the shearing of one's forelock as a symbol of recognition that one's life has been preserved by someone appears very clearly. The passage is moreover interesting through the fact that it is here God-not a human being-to whom one dedicates oneself by means of the act of shearing one's forelocks as a symbol of indebtedness for one's life having been spared.