Note 47 — Chapter VI · STORY OF MALIK IBN NOWEIRA. A.H. XI. A.D. 632.

The darker suspicion has been preserved by tradition, both in prose and verse. See C. de Perceval, vol. iii. p. 368; and Kitâb al Aghâny, vol. iii. p. 355. Leila, we are told, cast herself at Khâlid’s feet, with hair dishevelled and unveiled face, imploring mercy for her husband. The wretched man, noticing the admiring look which the conqueror bestowed upon his wife, cried out, ‘Alas, alas! here is the secret of my fate!’ ‘Not so,’ said Khâlid, as he gave the sign for beheading him; ‘but it is thine own apostasy.’ All the same, he took the wife straightway for his own. We may dismiss the scene as unsupported by evidence. It is also inconsistent with Abu Bekr’s treatment. His reproach of Khâlid was based not on the impropriety of the act itself (which he could hardly have avoided had the story been founded on fact), but on its being at variance with the ideas of the Arabs to wed on the field of battle. The example, however, was set by the Prophet himself, who married Safia the night after the battle of Kheibar, and at any rate it was not long in becoming a common practice. Following the example of Khâlid (repeated by him again shortly after), the Moslem warriors made no delay in the field to wed—or rather, without wedding, to treat upon the spot as servile concubines—the wives and daughters of their fallen foes. The practice also now arose of taking their own families with them in the field, and marriages were celebrated there among themselves—on one occasion, we read, on the eve of an impending battle.

As to the tenor of tradition, there are two distinct versions of the tragedy, one giving as its cause the misconception of Khâlid’s order, the other Mâlik’s own disloyal speech. This last, taken separately, is inconsistent with the admitted fact that Khâlid justified himself before Abu Bekr by the former. In the text I have endeavoured to combine the two narratives.

Mâlik had flowing locks, and (so runs the tradition) when the skulls of the prisoners were cast into the fire under the cooking-pots, his alone would not burn because of the mass of hair. The story (true or false) shows the spirit of savagery rapidly fanned by religious war.

I should perhaps mention that, though tradition is proud of Khâlid’s heroism, he is not a special favourite with Abbasside historians, as his son was afterwards a staunch supporter of the Omeyyads.