The Thematic and Rhetorical Transformation of ‘Aṣabiyya in Early Islamic Poetry

Abstract

Classical Arabic poetry played a powerful social role in Arab society, particularly during the Jāhiliyya (pre-Islamic) period, due to its high level of eloquence (faṣāḥa) and balāgha. Within this poetic tradition—shaped around themes such as heroism (ḥamāsah), boasting (fakhr), satire (hijā’), and love (tashbīb)—‘aṣabiyya occupied a central position as a means of constructing and preserving tribal identity through language. Poets exalted their own tribes and disparaged rival ones by employing persuasive and emotionally charged expression. With the revelation of the Qur’an in 610 CE, this literary and cultural heritage, grounded in aesthetic and expressive power, was reconfigured within a new religious framework. The Qur’an’s challenge-oriented discourse entered into direct interaction with existing poetic sensibilities. Against this background, the present study examines the transformation of ‘aṣabiyya in classical Arabic poetry during the early Islamic period. It offers a comparative analysis of lineage-centered ‘aṣabiyya in Jāhiliyya poetry and the emergence of an ummah-centered discourse of unity in Islamic poetry, drawing on poems by different poets from both periods. Using content analysis, rhetorical text analysis, and inductive methods, the study demonstrates that the Qur’an’s influence on Arabic poetry was neither uniform nor one-dimensional but significantly shaped poetic themes and authorial attitudes. By focusing on ‘aṣabiyya, the article aims to contribute to a renewed understanding of the Qur’an–poetry relationship in early Islam.

1. Introduction

One of the most essential elements shaping the socio-cultural fabric of pre-Islamic Arab society was the oral tradition and its refined form—poetry. Due to geographical isolation, a nomadic lifestyle, and the lack of political centralization, kalām (the spoken word) served not just as a means of communication but also as a key tool for establishing political influence, determining social prestige, constructing collective memory, and strengthening economic alliances. In this setting, eloquent and impactful speech developed into a multifaceted tool of power central to social life. An example that demonstrates this phenomenon can be found in al-‘Umda, a work by Ibn Rashīq al-Qayrawānī (d. 456/1064), where he describes the collective joy when a new poet emerges. This passage highlights a sociological phenomenon that goes far beyond the individual success of an artist. According to Ibn Rashīq, the appearance of a poet within a tribe was not only an aesthetic achievement but also a strategic victory for the tribe’s identity, honor, and future. This lucky event would be celebrated with feasts, musical festivities, and communal rejoicing, often with neighboring tribes joining in. For his tribe, the poet was not a passive bard but a shield protecting its honor, the sharpest weapon against the hijā’ of rival tribes, and a living repository that transmitted tribal heroism (ḥamāsah) to future generations.1 As Ibn Rashīq further notes, an Arab tribe would celebrate and exchange heartfelt congratulations only on three occasions: the birth of a male child, the emergence of a new poet, and the foaling of a noble mare. These three elements—offspring, word, and horse—represented, within the Jāhiliyya worldview, the concrete symbols of power, continuity, and honor, forming the core elements of tribal life (al-Qayrawānī 2000, vol. 1, p. 89; Nicholson 1907, p. 72).

This passage, which illustrates the Arabs’ sensitivity toward the poet—specifically, toward the power of eloquent speech—also highlights the development of literary verbal forms such as poetry, oratory, prose, and saj‘ (rhymed prose) in pre-Islamic Arabia. The remarks of Ibn Sallām (d. 231/846 [?]) and later Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889) regarding the number of Arab poets provide a notable example of this literary flourishing. At the start of his work on poets, Ibn Sallām notes that it is impossible to examine all the poems of an entire tribe (al-Jumaḥī 1916, vol. 1, p. 3).2 Ibn Qutayba, expressing this even more clearly, asserts that even if someone spent their whole life studying Arab poets and dedicated all their efforts to such research, they would still be unable to cover the total number of poets. Moreover, according to Ibn Qutayba, none of the scholars have succeeded in fully examining and transmitting the poetic legacy of any specific tribe (Ibn Qutayba 2002, vol. 1, p. 62).3

The abundance of Arabic poetry in quantitative terms also shaped its themes and syntactic structures. Poets living in different regions skillfully expressed their observations and feelings through poetry. This led to both greater diversity of themes and increased rhetorical power in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry. The remarks of Charles J. Lyall (d. 1920), who said that the classical Arabic qasīda reflected monotony, do not contradict this view. Lyall described the qasīda as a draft—or, more simply, as a template. It is important to note that Arab poets used different themes within the same template and based on those themes, adopted distinct syntactic and morphological styles in their works (Lyall 1912, p. 136). In this context, Suzanne Stetkevych’s view of the qasīda as a prominent, multi-thematic form of Arabic poetry that poets often turned to is especially significant (Stetkevych 2009, p. xiv).

But has pre-Islamic Arabic poetry remained same in terms of thematic diversity and rhetorical excellence? Is it possible to divide this poetic tradition into two phases—pre-Islamic and post-Islamic—based on its themes and rhetorical features? Did the Qur’an, known for its verbal supremacy, exert any influence on Arabic poetry? Was there any change in the theme of ‘aṣabiyya, which was prominent during the intertribal wars known as Ayyām al-ʿArab?4 Can ‘aṣabiyya in the Jāhiliyya period and in the Islamic era be evaluated within the same framework? And finally, did the Qur’an’s rhetorical dominance influence Arab poets in their portrayal of the ‘aṣabiyya theme?

These and similar questions form the core of this study, which examines how Arabic poetry’s themes have changed over time through the lens of the ‘aṣabiyya theme. Using the revelation of the Qur’an as a key turning point, the study first looks at the thematic features of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry and then explores how these features evolved with the arrival of Islam. Within this context, the research first considers how the theme of ‘aṣabiyya was handled during the Jāhiliyya period.5 It then assesses the Qur’an’s view of this phenomenon and its critical stance toward it. Finally, it investigates the transformation of this theme during the Islamic period by analyzing original poems and explores the different ways this change is reflected. In this study, particular emphasis has been placed on poems that articulate the theme of ‘aṣabiyya through a pronounced and effective syntactic structure. Subsequently, in order to demonstrate how the theme of ‘aṣabiyya underwent transformation during the early years of Islam, poems composed in the Islamic period have been examined. Poems from both periods are analyzed comparatively in thematic and rhetorical terms, revealing that the transformation of the theme was accompanied by discernible changes in rhetorical style. In this context, special attention is given to detailed sentence-level analyses that foreground the semantic and referential values of individual words and compound expressions. In this way, the study shows how Arab poets—particularly those known as muk̲h̲aḍramūn, who lived in both eras—shifted from a tribe-centered view of ‘aṣabiyya to a more universal, ummah-centered perspective.

Within the framework of the growing academic studies on Arabic language and literature in the twentieth century, numerous works have been produced on Arabic poetry of the Islamic period. The volume Arabic Poetry: Theory and Development, edited by G. E. von Grunebaum, which examines the aesthetic, thematic, and functional aspects of poetry—particularly traditional poetic forms such as the qasīda—in their historical and cultural contexts, is considered one of the early contributions in this field. Likewise, Badawi’s study From Primary to Secondary Qasīdas: Thoughts on the Development of Classical Arabic Poetry, which explores the evolution of Arabic poetry through the axis of the qasīda, should also be mentioned in this regard. According to Badawi, classical Arabic poetry did not remain a static form throughout history; rather, it underwent transformation both formally and thematically. Similarly, literary transformations were not limited to aesthetic preferences but were intertwined with social, cultural, and political changes (Badawī 1980, pp. 1–31). These literary and formal changes, occurring alongside the rise of Islam and the revelation of the Qur’an, introduced new themes into poetry. The divine revelation rejected the ‘aṣabiyya-based idea of belonging and aimed to establish a new social consciousness rooted in īmān (faith), akhlāq (morality), ‘adl (justice), ummah (communal unity), and uk̲h̲uwwa (brotherhood). Its goal was to replace the spirit of ‘aṣabiyya, characteristic of the Jāhiliyya period, with a sense of the ummah. However, history shows that the tribal spirit was not completely eliminated. After a brief decline in early Islam,6 tribal ‘aṣabiyya reappeared following the Battle of Ṣiffīn (al-‘Ānī 1996, p. 157). Especially during the Umayyad period, the long-standing rivalry between the Qaysī and Yamanī tribes resurfaced—though not as strongly as before—through political rivalry (al-‘Ish 1992, p. 185). During this period, poets such as Jarīr (d. 110/728 [?]), al-Farazdaq (d. 114/732), and al-Ak̲h̲ṭal (d. 92/710–11) revived the ‘aṣabiyya sentiment of the Jāhiliyya within the new political conditions through their hijāʾ and fak̲h̲r poems (for a detailed discussion of ʿaṣabiyya-themed poetry from this period, see Ḍayf 1995, vol. 2, pp. 242–89). Indeed, Ihsan al-Nass’s study al-‘Aṣabiyya al-Qabaliyya wa Atharuhā fī al-Shi‘r al-Umawī, which confines its scope to the Umayyad period, examines this theme in considerable detail (al-Naṣṣ 1973, pp. 13–654). Another scholar, Khalīl Ṣāleḥ Salīm Abū Raḥmeh, in the third chapter of his doctoral dissertation, investigated how the tribal-based settlement patterns in the conquered territories during the Umayyad period laid the groundwork for the reemergence of ‘aṣabiyya. Abū Raḥmeh argues that these tribe-centered settlements exerted a significant influence on both politics and poetry, noting that most poets devoted substantial portions of their works to defending their tribes and celebrating their heroic deeds (Abū Raḥmeh 1981, p. II). Similarly, Muhammad ‘Īsā Fayḍ, in his article The Impact of Tribalism on Poetry in the Umayyad and Abbasid Eras, analyzed how intense tribalism—much like in the Jāhiliyya—led to conflicts and divisions during the Umayyad and Abbasid periods and how this was reflected in Islamic poetry (Fayḍ 2024, pp. 126–33). A comparative perspective, however, reveals that this theme was less frequently employed in the Abbasid era. References by some poets, such as Abū Nuḫayla al-Tamīmī, to their tribe’s past heroism and ancient battles indicate that the spirit of ‘aṣabiyya still persisted (Ibn al-Mu‘tazz 1976, p. 64). Sa‘īd al-Afghānī, when discussing the literary function of the Mirbad market in Basra during the Abbasid period, notes that the market had lost its earlier role as a venue where Umayyad poets glorified their tribes. The intermingling of Arabs with foreign peoples and the weakening of resistance against Persian influence gradually brought about changes in lifestyle and worldview, leading to the decline of the tribalist notion (al-Afg̲h̲ānī 1974, pp. 421–22).

Existing studies that address the topic of ‘aṣabiyya generally aim to demonstrate that an ancient theme present during the Jāhiliyya period continued to be reworked and developed in Islamic-era poetry. In contrast, the present study does not claim that ‘aṣabiyya disappeared entirely from Arabic poetry; rather, it argues that while the concept persisted during the Islamic period, its influence became significantly diminished. Therefore, the study seeks to define how this weakening phenomenon—rooted in lineage and blood ties—was replaced by new social and literary themes that emphasized equality among individuals and promoted concepts such as “one single brotherhood, religion, and nation,” expressed in the Qur’anic phrase “ummatan wāḥidah” [Q21:92]. The absence of any previous study bearing the same title as the present work, along with the fact that existing research has largely focused on proving the persistence of ‘aṣabiyya, underscores the originality of this article. Another distinctive aspect that sets this study apart from prior scholarship is its examination of the transformation of the concept of ‘aṣabiyya within the framework of the Qur’an’s rhetorical supremacy.7 Accordingly, the present study does not claim to offer an exhaustive critique of the transformation of Arabic poetry but instead aims to assess the main tendencies of current research and to predict how these tendencies may shape future studies. To this end, the study occasionally refers to the question of i‘jāz al-Qur’an (the inimitability of the Qur’an) and examines its impact on Arabic poetry.

2. ‘Aṣabiyya in Pre-Islamic Arabic Poetry

The tribe, which played a decisive role in shaping the political and moral consciousness of pre-Islamic Arabs, also constituted the fundamental basis of social order and political organization. In Jāhiliyya society, each tent represented a family, and the gathering of tents formed a ḥayy. Those belonging to the same ḥayy constituted a qawm (clan), and several clans together formed a qabīla (tribe) (Hıttı 1970, p. 50). This social structure was organized around a patriarchal figure, bringing his descendants together under a single umbrella and viewing them as an inseparable whole bound by blood ties (al-Juraysī 2006, p. 27). In the Arab geography of the Jāhiliyya period, villages and towns clustered around quarters known as shi‘āb, and among the tribes inhabiting these quarters, there existed a strong sense of ‘aṣabiyya (‘Alī 2001, vol. 7, p. 91). Kinship relations within the tribe and the corresponding sense of ‘aṣabiyya were established both through paternal lineage (blood) and through maternal milk ties. Stetkevych emphasizes that kinship among the ancient Arabs was constructed upon these two principles (Stetkevych 1993, p. 208). Hitti points out that within the tribal structure, the blood bond functioned as a foundational and binding force, regardless of whether it was real or imagined. At times, this kinship was reinforced through symbolic rituals, such as sharing a member’s meal or drinking a few drops of his blood (Hıttı 1970, p. 26). Lexically, the term derives from the root (ع–ص–ب), which conveys meanings such as to encircle, surround, bind tightly, and cover (al-Farāhīdī 2003, vol. 3, p. 166; Ibn Manẓūr 1994, vol. 1, p. 602). In addition, this root denotes the idea of individuals clinging to one another through a strong bond and acting in solidarity as a group (al-Fīrūzābādī 2005, p. 115). From the same root, the term ‘uṣba is used to describe groups of people who are united in cohesion and who establish mutual relations of support and defense (al-Iṣfahānī 1991, p. 568). The term ‘aṣaba, by contrast, refers to a group of agnatic relatives connected through the paternal line (Karaman 1991, vol. 3, p. 452). ‘Aṣabiyya, therefore, denotes a form of solidarity whereby such a kinship group supports its members unconditionally—whether they are in the right or in the wrong—standing by them and adopting a collective stance against perceived enemies (al-Azharī 2001, vol. 2, p. 30). This semantic framework is also clearly reflected in reports that illustrate how the concept was evaluated in an Islamic context. Indeed, when the Prophet Muḥammad was asked, “What is ‘aṣabiyya?”, he replied: “It is helping one’s own people in wrongdoing” (Ibn ‘Asākir 1995, vol. 62, p. 358). As for ‘aṣabiyya, the concept denotes loyalty to one’s kin—supporting them whether they are oppressors or oppressed, standing by their side, and displaying collective solidarity against their enemies (al-Azharī 2001, vol. 2, p. 30).

Ibn K̲h̲aldūn explains that ‘aṣabiyya naturally exists within humans and, as a result of this bond, when injustice or disaster affect one’s close relatives or kin, a feeling of anger and protective solidarity instinctively emerges. He notes that a person feels distress when his kin face oppression or hostility and seeks to shield them from harm. In supportive relationships, the closer the blood relation, the stronger the unity and cohesion among members; conversely, when the genealogical link is distant, such solidarity may weaken or be forgotten (Ibn K̲h̲aldūn 1981, vol. 1, pp. 160–61). Besides blood and lineage ties, ‘aṣabiyya also includes alliances where tribes pledge mutual defense. These allies, called ḥilf (pl. aḥlāf), are often considered part of the same tribe (‘Alī 2001, vol. 7, pp. 370–88; Ḍayf 1995, vol. 1, pp. 58–59; al-Khuwfī 1952, p. 217). The purpose of these alliances, as shown in the following verse, is to end internal conflicts, attack external enemies, and strengthen defenses.

وَذُبْيانَ هل أقسَمتمُ كلَّ مُقسَمِ

ألا أَبْلِغِ الأحْلَافَ عني رِسَالَةً

“Convey from me a message to Banū D̲h̲ubyān and the allies (Asad and G̲h̲aṭafān), and say: You have sworn to uphold every covenant firmly; therefore, do not, by any means, break your oath.”

(al-Anbārī 1969, p. 265)

The phenomenon of ‘aṣabiyya in the worldview of the Jāhiliyya Arabs was not limited to shaping the structure of the tribe; it also constituted one of the most dominant themes in poetry, manifesting in the glorification of one’s ancestral nobility (mafākhir al-‘Arab) and the vilification of rival tribes (mat̲h̲ālib al-‘Arab) (Nicholson 1907, p. 100). For instance, in the following verse, belonging to an ignoble tribe is portrayed as a source of shame.

عَوَى الْكَلْبُ مِنْ لُؤْمِ هَذَا النَّسَبِ

وَلَوْ قِيلَ لِلْكَلْبِ يَا بَاهِلِيُّ

“If one were to address a dog by saying, ‘O Bāhilī!’, it would bark in protest, as if rejecting such a lineage out of shame for its baseness.”

(al-Mubarrad 1997, vol. 3, p. 9)

In another account, a Bedouin was asked, “Would you agree to become a Bāhilī on the condition that you enter Paradise?” He replied, “I would accept, provided that the people of Paradise would not learn that I am from Banū Bāhila” (Hussein 2014, p. 99). The fact that the Banū Bāhila tribe was constantly subjected to satire and that belonging to it was considered a mark of ignobility by all Arabs clearly demonstrates how ‘aṣabiyya operated within the hierarchy of social values. As can be observed, in the Jāhiliyya period, individuals were directly associated with the honor and dignity of their tribes, and these values were reinforced within society through either satire or praise (madḥ). In the case of the Bedouin mentioned above, tribal affiliation and bonds of ‘aṣabiyya are seen to outweigh personal interests, which in turn provides insight into the social structure of the time. Apart from such rare exceptions, however, an individual was bound to defend his tribe under all circumstances—even when it was in the wrong—as expressed in the following verse.

غَوَيْتُ وإنْ تَرْشُدْ غَزِيّةُ أَرْشُدِ

وهَلْ أَنَا إلاّ مِنْ غَزِيّة إنْ غَوَتْ

“I am but one of Ghaziyya: If my tribe strays from the right path, I stray with it; and if it chooses the right way, I follow it.”

(al-Aṣma‘ī 1993, p. 107; Ibn Qutayba 2002, vol. 2, p. 738)

This verse, attributed to Durayd b. al-Ṣimmah (d. 8/630), one of the renowned horsemen of the Hawāzin tribe, clearly illustrates how deeply the sense of tribal solidarity (‘aṣabiyya) was rooted in the soul of the Jāhiliyya Arab and how it became inseparable from his very identity. The poet fully understands that individual will is subordinate to the tribe’s integrity and honor. Because of this, he demonstrates his loyalty to his tribe with complete submission: whatever the tribe does or decides, he follows accordingly. This attitude, in contrast to the case of Banū Bāhila, reflects a quintessentially tribalist perspective typical of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry.

During the Jāhiliyya period, pride in lineage and tribal affiliation at times led to excesses. A person boasting in such a manner would neither acknowledge that anyone else equaled his tribe in honor or ancestry nor tolerate any such claim. The following verses, recited by Badr b. Ma‘shar of Banū Kināna at the ‘Ukāẓ fair in praise of himself, clearly illustrate this attitude. After completing his poem, Badr extended his leg in the middle of the market and, filled with tribal pride, proclaimed: “I am the noblest among the Arabs! Whoever claims to be nobler than I am—let him cut off my leg!” Thereupon, despite it being one of the sacred months, a man from the Hawāzin tribe named al-Aḥmar b. Māzin could not restrain himself, drew his sword, and severed Badr’s leg (al-Balādhurī 1996, vol. 11, pp. 130–31; al-Juraysī 2006, p. 36). Goldziher (1850–1921) argues that the first Fijār war between the tribes of Hawāzin and Kināna began as a result of this provocation (Goldzıher 1966, p. 59).

	مَنْ يَطْعَنُوا فِي عَيْنِهِ لَا يَطْرِفِ	نَحْنُ بَنُو مُدْرِكَةَ بْنِ خِنْدِفِ
	كَأنَّهُمْ لُجَّةُ بَحْرٍ مُسْدِفِ	وَمَنْ يَكُونُوا قَوْمَهُ يُغَطْرِفِ

“We are the descendants of Banū Mudrika b. K̲h̲indif; whoever is struck in the eye by our dagger shall never blink again.

Those who belong to Banū Mudrika move with heads held high, proud and resounding like the roaring waves of a dark sea.”

Badr’s poetic self-praise can be regarded as a classical fak̲h̲r theme characteristic of Jāhiliyya poetry. However, what provoked the ‘aṣabiyya sentiments of those present at the fair was his open challenge—“Who is nobler than I?” This act went so far as to endanger both his own and his tribe’s honor within a society in which blood and lineage loyalty were held in the highest regard. In Jāhiliyya society, ‘aṣabiyya was not merely a sense of belonging or solidarity but also an assertion of superiority. The fact that Badr’s words were intolerable to others and that blood was shed despite the sanctity of the sacred months reveals how deeply ingrained the feeling of ‘aṣabiyya was and how powerful it could be—strong enough to override even religious prohibitions. Later, al-Aḥmar turned this incident into a source of pride for himself and his tribe, expressing his deed against Badr b. Maʿshar in the following verses.

	مِنَ الدَّوَاهِي الّتِي بِالعَمْدِ أجْنِيهَا	إِنِّي وسَيْفِي حَلِيفَا كُلِّ دَاهِيَةٍ
	جَهْراً وأَبْرَزَ عَنْ رِجْلٍ يُعَرِّيهَا	إِنِّي نَقَمْتُ عَلَيْهِ الفَخْرَ حِينَ دَعَا
	وقُلْتُ دُونَكَهَا خُذْهَا بِمَا فِيهَا	ضَرَبْتُهَا أَنَفًا إِذْ مَدَّهَا بَطَراً
	أَوْمَا إِلَى رِجْلِهِ الأُخْرَى يُفَدِّيهَا	لَمَّا رَأَى رِجْلَهُ بَانَتْ بِرُكْبَتِهَا

“I and my sword are companions to every calamity I willfully bring about.

I hated him for his brazen boasting and for thrusting out his foot.

By my nobility, when he arrogantly stretched out his foot I cut it off and said, ‘Now take whatever remains of your foot.’

And when he saw that it had been severed up to the knee, he signalled the other to sacrifice his as well.”

(al-Juraysī 2006, p. 37; al-Āmidī 1991, p. 42)

The poet emphasizes that any assault on honor or reputation must inevitably be met with strength and weaponry. The act of another man, belonging to a different lineage, arrogantly stretching out his foot in boastfulness had, in the poet’s eyes, called into question the superiority and nobility of his own tribe. Affected by Badr’s claim, “We are the noblest among the Arabs,” al-Ahmar felt a sense of humiliation, which in turn triggered his tribal sense of honor. Thus, by drawing his sword and cutting off his opponent’s foot, he not only inflicted a physical punishment but also delivered a symbolic response on behalf of tribal dignity. Yet Badr’s gesture—signaling his other foot for sacrifice despite the first being cut—demonstrates that he continued to prioritize ‘aṣabiyya above all else. This behavior, which reflects the very essence of pre-Islamic tribal culture, stands as concrete evidence that lineage and ‘aṣabiyya were regarded as superior to the physical self.

A similar scene can be observed in the case of Abū Jahl, who was slain at the Battle of Badr. When ‘Abd Allāh b. Mas‘ūd found him wounded on the battlefield, Abū Jahl is reported to have said, “Is there anyone nobler than the man killed by his own tribe? Being slain by one’s tribe is no cause for shame” (Ibn Ḥanbal 2001, vol. 19, p. 316). These words reveal that even at the moment of death, he preserved his unwavering attachment to his tribe.

In pre-Islamic desert life, the scarcity of pastures and grazing lands was the main cause of rivalry and conflicts among tribes (Hıttı 1970, p. 25). Disputes over these grazing areas and water supplies often led to raids and attacks, eventually turning into intertribal wars called Ayyām al-‘Arab (Ilham 2022, p. 211). As a result, the tribes knew they had no choice but to prepare for such conflicts, accepting that their survival depended on the edge of swords and spears. This made it necessary for them to unite under a strong tribal authority and take collective action with their kin (‘Abd al-Jabbār and Ḫafājī 1959, p. 166). In this context, any attack on a tribe member would stir the spirit of ‘aṣabiyya and rally the tribe to retaliate together. In the Bedouin worldview, staying on the defensive was seen as weakness and a sign of inviting oppression. So, they believed they should always stay on the offensive—raiding other tribes and taking their women and livestock. The following verse by the pre-Islamic poet Zuhayr b. Abī Sulmā (d. 609 [?]) reflects the mentality of the Jāhiliyya and the tribal sense of ‘aṣabiyya:

وَمَنْ لا يَذُدْ عنْ حَوْضِهِ بِسِلاحِهِ يُهَدَّمْ وَمَنْ لا يَظْلِمِ النَّاسَ يُظْلَمِ

“Whoever does not defend his tribe and homeland with his own sword, that land will perish. And whoever does not inflict violence upon others (the enemy), will surely fall victim to their violence.”

(al-Muzanī 1988, p. 111)

The poet Zuhayr emphasizes power and deterrence over justice or peace as essential for survival. His poetry shows that maintaining a tribe’s existence and honor was believed to rely on violence and coercion, and oppressing others (the enemy) was seen as a social necessity. From this point of view, Zuhayr’s couplet can be seen as a direct reflection of the ideological basis of ‘aṣabiyya. Likewise, Mu‘allaqa poet ‘Amr b. Kult̲h̲ūm (d. 584 or 600) conveyed the same idea through his verses, illustrating tribal strength for his clan in the Bedouin deserts—where there was no justice or centralized authority:

	فَنَجْهَلَ فَوْقَ جَهْلِ الْجَاهِلِينَا	أَلَا لَا يَجْهَلَنْ أَحَدٌ عَلَيْنَا
	وَيَشْرَبُ غَيْرُنَا كَدِرًا وَطِينَا	وَنَشْرَبُ إِنْ وَرَدْنَا الْمَاءَ صَفْوًا
	ونَبْطِشُ حِينَ نَبْطِش قادِرينا	لنا الدُّنيا وما أَمْسَى عَليْها
	ولكنّا سنَبدأُ ظاَلمينا	بُغاةً ظالِمينَ وما ظُلِمْنا

“Let no one attempt to tyrannize us or assert supremacy. If we resort to tyranny, we shall be more cruel and pitiless than all.

When we reach the water, we drink the clear; those who come after us drink the filthy and the mire.

The earth and all that is upon it are ours; when strong, we oppress as far as our strength extends.

For we are violent and heartless people; we suffer no oppression. Yet when we rise in action, our first victims are those who first sought to wrong us.”

(al-Tag̲h̲libī 1991, pp. 78–90)

In these verses, the Tag̲h̲libite warrior and poet ‘Amr b. Kult̲h̲ūm threatens the Lak̲h̲mid king ‘Amr b. Hind—and, by extension, all other tribes—while asserting the power and preeminent status of his own tribe among the Arabs. In doing so, the poet articulates, in the starkest terms, a worldview grounded in ‘aṣabiyya and a tribe-centered conception of power. The ideals of tribal freedom and boundless domination are presented as the natural manifestations of a power-oriented cosmology. Indeed, Abū ‘Amr al-Shaybānī (d. 213/828 [?]) supports this view when he remarks that during the Jāhiliyya period, the Tag̲h̲lib tribe was the most violent and powerful among men, and that, had Islam been delayed any longer, it would have “devoured all the Arabs” (al-Tabrīzī 1973, p. 379).

One of the historical events that most vividly illustrates the cruelty of the Jāhiliyya and the tangible embodiment of the ‘aṣabiyya bond is the Basūs War, which broke out between the tribes of Tag̲h̲lib and Bakr b. Wāʾil because of a murder. Among the pre-Islamic Arabs, a blood feud did not concern the murderer alone; it inevitably involved his entire tribe. The victim’s relatives would carry out retribution beginning with the killer himself, proceeding in order of kinship according to the hierarchy of ‘aṣabiyya. If they failed to reach the murderer, they would punish his nearest kin first, and, if necessary, his more distant relatives. All of this was to be carried out within a strict hierarchy: the act of retaliation was to target one equivalent (nazīr) or near-equal (qarīn) to the killer (‘Alī 2001, vol. 7, p. 393; Hıttı 1970, p. 26; Stetkevych 1993, p. 63). Indeed, Hussein, in his study of the Basūs War, draws attention to this social hierarchy by describing the attitude of the victim’s family toward that of the killer, thereby illustrating the moral logic underlying such ‘aṣabiyya -based retribution (Hussein 2025, p. 223).

It is also important to note that although ‘aṣabiyya in the Jāhiliyya and the virtue of murūʾa (manly honor, chivalry, or moral integrity) were inseparable traits of the Bedouin, the refusal of some sub-tribes of Bakr b. Wāʾil—namely Banū Lujaym and Banū Yas̲h̲kur—to join their own tribe in battle and their declaration of neutrality, or, conversely, the rejection by the Taghlib tribe of Banū Shaybān’s offer of one thousand camels as blood compensation, despite their shared lineage, demonstrate moments when the spirit of ‘aṣabiyya temporarily broke down. Stetkevych aptly describes this as “the disintegration of the confederated tribal units” (Stetkevych 1993, p. 210). Nevertheless, within the tribal system of the Jāhiliyya, it was an unquestioned moral imperative—embodied in the maxim “Support your brother, whether he is an oppressor or oppressed”—to come to the aid of one’s kinsman regardless of guilt or innocence. Such conduct was considered an essential requirement of murūʾa and ḥamiyya (protective pride, or group loyalty/patriotism) (al-Maydānī 2010, vol. 2, pp. 394–95; Shuhbah 1992, vol. 1, p. 61). Thus, when a tribesman heard the call of ‘aṣabiyya, his immediate response—grasping his sword and spear without asking for the cause—was taken as the ultimate proof of loyalty (‘Alī 2001, vol. 7, p. 393). While Stetkevych’s observation about the fragmentation of tribal federations is persuasive, the participation of Banū Shaybān—the tribe of al-Jaṣṣāṣ—in the aforementioned war indicates that the hierarchy of kinship described earlier was still in effect. Other tribes, rather than defending one of their own whom they deemed to have committed an unjust killing, preferred that his close relatives bear responsibility for the blood feud. Nonetheless, such abstention was regarded as a serious violation of tribal solidarity. Failing to respond to one’s clan’s call for aid was deemed disgraceful and a cause for reproach. In this regard, the neutrality of the Yas̲h̲kur tribe and of al-Ḥārith b. ‘Ubād during the Basūs War was strongly condemned by the Hamāsī poet Saʿd b. Mālik al-Bakrī, who sought to provoke them into joining the battle, as reflected in the following verses (al-Andalusī 1982, p. 616).

	وَضَعَتْ أَرَاهِطَ فَاسْتَرَاحُوا	يَا بُؤْسَ لِلْحَرْبِ الَّتِي
	أَولادُ يَشْكُرَ واللَّقَاحُ	بِئْسَ الخَلائِفُ بَعْدَنا
	فَأَنَا ابْنُ قَيْسٍ لَا بَراحُ	مَن صَدَّ عن نِيرَانِها

“How wretched is the battle that disgraced them—the tribe that grew accustomed to comfort and took no vengeance, laying down their arms!

How vile are the sons of Banū Yas̲h̲kur and Banū Ḥanīfa who held back from war!

Whoever flees from the fire of battle—know that I am Ibn Qays, and I shall never flee.”

(al-Tabrīzī 1878, vol. 1, pp. 192–93)

A similar attitude is also seen in the poetry of the pre-Islamic poet Qurayt b. Unayf + al-Anbarī. When members of the Banū Shaybān attacked him and took thirty of his camels, he asked his own tribe for help—but they refused to help. Qurayt then reached out to Banū Māzin for assistance; they answered his call, raided the Banū Shaybān, and took a hundred camels from them as spoils. After this incident, Qurayt wrote the following verses to shame and criticize his own tribe.

	بَنُو اللَّقِيطَة مِنْ ذُهْلِ بنِ شَيْبَانَا	لَوْ كُنْتُ مِنْ مَازِنٍ لَمْ تَسْتَبِحْ إِبلي
	طَارُوا إِلَيْهِ زَرَافَاتٍ وَوِحْدَانَا	قَوْمٌ إِذَا الشَّرُّ أَبْدَى نَاجِذَيْهِ لَهُمْ
	فِي النَّائِبَاتِ عَلَى مَا قَالَ بُرْهَانَا	لَا يَسْأَلُونَ أَخَاهُمْ حِينَ يَنْدُبُهُمْ
	لَيْسُوا مِنَ الشَّرِّ فِي شَيْءٍ وَإِنْ هَانَا	لَكِنَّ قَوْمِي وَإِنْ كَانُوا ذَوِي عَدَدٍ
	وَمِنْ إِسَاءَةِ أَهْلِ السُّوءِ إِحْسَانَا	يُجْزُونَ مِنْ ظُلْمِ أَهْلِ الظُّلْمِ مَغْفِرَةً
	شَنُّوا الإغارةَ فُرْساناً ورُكْبانا	فلَيْتَ لي بِهِمُ قوماً إذا رَكِبوا

“Had I belonged to Banū Māzin, then Banū Laqīṭ—the descendants of Zuhl b. Shaybān—would never have seized my camels by force.

They are a people who, when calamity bares its teeth at them, fly toward it—one by one or all together.

When called upon in times of distress, they do not ask their brothers for an explanation.

My own tribe, though many in number, never plunges into peril, even when insulted and humiliated.

They answer the tyranny of wrongdoers with forgiveness, and repay the evil of evildoers with kindness

Would that my people were like theirs—horsemen who, once mounted, crush all before them!”

(al-Bag̲h̲dādī 1997, vol. 7, p. 441)

According to al-Marzūqī (d. 421/1030), this poem shouldn’t be seen just as satire but as a moral plea meant to motivate the tribe to help its members (al-Marzūqī 1991, vol. 1, pp. 22–24). This subtle point shows that tribal ‘aṣabiyya among the Jāhiliyya Arabs often developed as a practical alliance driven by the tough geographical and cultural conditions of desert life. The protection that tribesmen provided each other was less because of love rooted in blood ties and more because of a shared goal not to perish in a harsh social environment. The line, “they do not ask their brothers for an explanation,” exemplifies ‘aṣabiyya as a spirit of unity and unquestioning loyalty. However, notably, in this case, the person asking for help was not even a tribe member, yet he was helped as if he were one of their own. This raises an important question: is tribal ‘aṣabiyya based only on kinship and blood? While lineage was definitely its main basis, the story told by the poet also shows how the virtue of murūʾa—a moral code as strong as ‘aṣabiyya in pre-Islamic Arab ethics—operated. As the poem implies, despite blood ties, the poet’s tribe abandoned him, while Banū Māzin stepped in to help, acting out of murūʾa rather than family duty.

3. The Qur’an Critique of ‘Aṣabiyya

The Arab society, known for its distinct pre-Islamic traditions, faced a completely new social paradigm with the revelation of the Qur’an in 610 CE. Although this change happened gradually, the Arabs could not hide their reactions to the divine messages received by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) through revelation (al-Jurjānī 1984, pp. 581–585). The taḥaddī (challenge) issued to the polytheists—who denied the Qur’an’s divine origin—can be understood as a direct response to this resistance. Verses such as, “Or they say, ‘He has forged it.’ Say, ‘Then bring ten suras like it, forged, and call upon whomever you can besides Allah, if you are truthful’” [Q11:13], are regarded as a taḥaddī to the Arabs, who prided themselves on their faṣāḥa and balāg̲h̲a.8 Yet, despite these challenges, no Arab poet or orator was ever able to match the Qur’an’s rhetorical supremacy or to produce a composition comparable to its inimitable discourse (al-Jurjānī 1984, pp. 38–40).

The Qurʾān’s challenge to the disbelieving Arabs—to produce at least ten surahs comparable to its success [Q17:88], or even a single surah [Q10:38; Q2:23]—may be regarded not merely as an invitation but as a powerful rhetorical strategy. As noted above, the unbelievers failed to meet this taḥaddī. Within the later i‘jāz literature, this failure was explained by reference to the Qur’an’s unparalleled linguistic and stylistic excellence. Consequently, the doctrine of i‘jāz—the inimitability of the Qur’an—emerged as a central tenet of Islamic literary theory. However, the very articulation of such a challenge presupposes that the audience, in theory, possessed the potential to produce a comparable literary work. After all, they spoke the same language—the Arabic language—as the Prophet Muhammad himself. Yet, according to the Muslim exegetical tradition, the essential distinction lay in the Qur’an’s masterful and transcendent use of this shared linguistic medium—an aesthetic and balāgha refinement that the opponents could never attain (Paret 1983, pp. 215–16).

Was the impact of the Qur’an confined solely to the rhetorical domain? To what extent did its religious and cultural teachings initiate a broader social transformation? In particular, how did the Qur’an address deeply rooted social institutions such as the tribal wars known as Ayyām al-‘Arab, slavery, and ribā (usury)? And through what means did it seek to transform these structures? Furthermore, what role did the Qur’an’s linguistic and rhetorical supremacy play in facilitating this transformation?

To comprehend the transformation that Arab society underwent with the advent of Islam, these and similar questions must be examined systematically. In this regard, two primary sources stand out as the most revealing of the period’s intellectual outlook and social norms: the Qur’anic text itself and pre-Islamic Arabic poetry. A comparative reading of these two corpora offers a critical methodological framework for tracing both ruptures and continuities between the pre-Islamic and Islamic periods—particularly concerning the notions of tribalism and ‘aṣabiyya (see al-Dūrī 2003, pp. 9–287; Ayyıldız 2021, pp. 1103–22).

With the revelation of the Qur’an and the spread of Islam’s message, the Prophet Muḥammad launched an intense struggle against ‘aṣabiyya, which he regarded as the principal cause of division and internecine conflict among the Arabs (al-Juraysī 2006, p. 43). Islam sought to abolish the tribal rivalries, mockery, and self-glorification characteristic of the Jāhiliyya period, and to establish instead the principles of social equality and brotherhood (Goldzıher 1966, p. 54). One of the most significant steps taken in this regard was the signing of the Constitution of Medina, considered the first constitutional document of the Islamic polity. Muhammad Hamidullah (1908–2002) interprets this charter as a revolutionary reform for the Arabian Peninsula—ending the chaos of tribalism and replacing personal or tribal pursuit of justice with a centralized public institution through which justice could be sought (Ḥamīdullāh 1975, p. 18). Goldziher similarly notes that the Prophet sought to prevent the reemergence of old tribal hostilities and to strengthen the unity of believers by declaring brotherhood between Muslims of Medina and those of Mecca, thereby replacing blood-based ties with religious bonds. Yet, he also observes that this effort to substitute religious allegiance and moral criteria for tribal prestige and genealogical values often clashed with the deeply ingrained Arab mentality (Goldzıher 1966, pp. 54–56). Indeed, certain Arabs rejected Islam precisely because of their attachment to ‘aṣabiyya (al-Fayyūmī 1994, p. 486); they could not reconcile the pride of tribal superiority with the universal message of revelation. For instance, the tribe of Bakr b. Wāʾil reportedly desired to wage one final campaign against the Banū Tamīm before embracing Islam (al-Nuwayrī 2002, vol. 15, p. 393). Likewise, Abū Jahl of the Banū Mak̲h̲zūm, who claimed his tribe was more deserving of revelation, expressed the same sentiment to Aḫnas b. Sharīq al-Thaqafī—revealing the sharp ideological tension between the ethos of ‘aṣabiyya and the egalitarian message of revelation.

“We and the Banū ‘Abd Manāf have long competed for honor and prestige. They fed others, and we fed others; they undertook mediation and paid blood-money, and so did we. They gave, and we gave—until we were like two racehorses running neck and neck. Then they declared, ‘A prophet has arisen among us, receiving revelation from heaven!’ How could we ever match such a claim? By God, we shall neither believe in him nor acknowledge him”

(al-Miṣrī 1990, vol. 1, p. 343).

This attitude is also reflected in the verse of Sūrat al-Zukhruf: “And they said, ‘Why was this Qur’an not sent down upon a great man from [one of] the two cities?’” [Q43:31]. In this context, certain Arabs expressed the expectation that revelation should have been bestowed upon one of the prominent figures of the Banū Thaqīf or the Banū Mak̲h̲zūm tribes (al-Balk̲h̲ī 2002, vol. 3, pp. 793–94). Such attitudes clearly demonstrate the persistence of a tribal mentality that associated divine favor with genealogical and social superiority.

In this socio-political setting, the revelation aimed to weaken tribal authority and build a community based on equal rights for all, where divine authority would supersede tribal dominance. This is clearly shown in the verses: “Indeed, this community of yours is one community, and I am your Lord, so worship me” [Q21:92] and “You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind” [Q3:110]. As Ḍayf notes, these verses collectively seek to go beyond tribal loyalties by creating a unified ummah centered on divine sovereignty instead of kinship or lineage (Ḍayf 1995, vol. 2, pp. 18–19). A clear example of this change was the Prophet’s role in ending the long-standing blood feud between the Aws and Khazraj tribes. This ‘aṣabiyya-driven conflict, which had lasted nearly 120 years (al-Sam‘ānī 1997, vol. 1, p. 346), was resolved through reconciliation, paving the way for a new social order based on peace and cooperation. When old hostilities later flared up again and members of each tribe started calling their allies to fight, the Prophet rebuked them, saying: “Do you still call upon the cause of Jāhiliyya while I am among you?”—then he reconciled both sides and ended the last traces of tribal partisanship (al-Zamak̲h̲s̲h̲arī 1987, vol. 1, p. 393). The Qur’an itself describes this conflict and its resolution in the following manner (al-Balk̲h̲ī 2002, vol. 1, p. 293; vol. 4, p. 94):

“And remember the favor of Allah upon you—when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers” [Q3:103]. “And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah”

[Q49:9].

The verse in which ‘aṣabiyya is decisively neutralized is particularly striking in its injunction: “Fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah.” This command is noteworthy because the phrase “fight against the one that oppresses” runs counter to the Jāhiliyya code of conduct. In pre-Islamic custom, when conflict arose, both sides were obliged to fight regardless of whether they were in the right or wrong. If a murder occurred, the tribe of the killer would retaliate to avenge its member, while the tribe of the slain regarded such retaliation as a matter of honor and thus felt compelled to respond in kind. The Qur’an, however, sought to curb this cyclical violence by instituting a system grounded in justice and moral accountability, rather than uncritical tribal solidarity. The Prophet himself reinforced this ethical transformation, declaring: “He who calls to ‘aṣabiyya, fights for ‘aṣabiyya, or dies for ‘aṣabiyya is not one of us” (al-Sijistānī 1935, vol. 4, p. 332). When asked to define ‘aṣabiyya, the Prophet replied: “It is to support one’s own people even when they are in the wrong” (al-Sijistānī 1935, vol. 4, p. 331). Through such teachings, Islam sought to prevent its adherents from perpetuating unjust forms of tribal partisanship and to reorient collective loyalty toward the moral and divine order.

One of the major innovations introduced by the Qur’an was the concept of uk̲h̲uwwa (brotherhood). As indicated in the verses: “The believers are but brothers” [Q49:10] and “They are your brothers in religion” [Q9:11], the ‘aṣabiyya of the Jāhiliyya era was replaced by a new moral and spiritual bond—brotherhood in faith. This notion of brotherhood is built upon shared belief, thought, practice, and ethical conduct; it is likened to the intimacy of two biological brothers who resemble each other in many attributes and dispositions (al-Nāsirī 1985, vol. 2, p. 362).

Both Qur’anic verses and prophetic traditions make it clear that Islam not only criticized the ‘aṣabiyya that lay at the core of pre-Islamic society but also rejected the injustices arising from it. Instead, Islam sought to establish a new social order in which human relationships were grounded not in blood ties but in the principles of equality and justice. Toshihiko Izutsu likewise emphasizes that the Qur’anic message aimed to transcend tribal particularism, liberating humanity from the narrow confines of genealogical identity and uniting them within a universal community of faith (Sperl 2020, p. 402). Ultimately, this transformation was neither immediate nor effortless, for it took place within a society where kinship and descent lay at the very heart of social status and collective belonging. Yet, through the guidance of divine revelation and the Prophet’s teaching and example, the blind loyalty characteristic of ‘aṣabiyya was largely dismantled and replaced by a new consciousness of unity—one founded upon the ideals of ummah and faith-based brotherhood.

4. The Transformation of ‘Aṣabiyya in Islamic Society and Its Reflection in Poetry

The new phase that began with divine revelation in 610 CE soon transformed the entire Arabian Peninsula. Tribes that had once defended one another indiscriminately—whether right or wrong—and poets and orators whose loyalty to their tribe had been absolute, now embraced a new religious doctrine that prioritized “brotherhood in faith” over “brotherhood in blood.” Nevertheless, many continued to adhere to the literal meanings of ‘aṣabiyya—such as “to bind,” “to unite in speech,” and “to gather around someone” (al-Iṣfahānī 1991, p. 568). Some, even after accepting Islam, still maintained the tribal reflex of defending their kin on the father’s side—whether just or unjust—preserving ‘aṣabiyya as an instinctive expression of unity and solidarity (al-Zabīdī 2001, vol. 3, p. 381). Naturally, one’s impulse to protect and stand by close relatives against injustice may be understood as a natural human tendency. Yet when such reactions escalated into ‘aṣabiyya—that is, when bonds of belonging were absolutized to the extent that collective or tribal interests were placed above universal justice—they became socially untenable. Historically, Arab ‘aṣabiyya functioned as a practical mechanism of mutual protection—safeguarding life, property, and honor—particularly in the absence of centralized political or legal authority. However, it often evolved into a form of exclusivist loyalty that centered familial and tribal ties while violating the rights of other groups, even resorting to violence as a means of preserving dominance. Thus, while rooted in a legitimate social instinct of defense, ‘aṣabiyya ultimately conflicted with the principles of justice and law. For the loosely structured desert communities of the seventh century, such behavior might have seemed tolerable within its historical context. Yet it stood in sharp contradiction to Islam’s universal vision of a society founded on justice and brotherhood. Instead of reinforcing solidarity, it perpetuated injustice and clashed with the emerging moral and legal foundations of Islamic civilization (Ibn K̲h̲aldūn 1981, vol. 1, pp. 161–63).

This transformation was equally relevant for the poets—who, in pre-Islamic Arab society, had served as the principal propagandists of ‘aṣabiyya, the central instrument of intertribal rivalry and honor-based competition. As masters of rhetoric, the Jāhiliyya poets glorified their tribes’ honor, lineage, and valor without regard for the moral legitimacy of their actions. Such poetic expressions not only reinforced tribal pride but also deepened hostilities and social divisions among clans.

With the advent of Islam, however, the value system of Arab society underwent a profound transformation: race- and tribe-based ‘aṣabiyya was replaced by a new sense of collective consciousness grounded in religious values and the unity of the ummah. Poets redefined their roles accordingly—no longer serving as spokesmen for their tribes, but composing verses that celebrated tawḥīd (divine oneness), justice, brotherhood, and jihād (holy war). This poetic reorientation required abandoning the exclusionary ethos of tribal partisanship in favor of a more integrative form of solidarity—one that united all Muslims under a single moral and spiritual framework. The earliest reflections of this shift can be traced to the first battles of the Muslim community, particularly the Battle of Badr, where the traditional ‘aṣabiyya ties were decisively broken. For instance, in the elegiac verses of Qutayla bint al-Ḥārit̲h̲ for her brother al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārit̲h̲ al-Qurashī (d. 2/624), who was killed while fighting among the polytheists, the severing of ‘aṣabiyya bonds between fathers, sons, uncles, and kin is portrayed with striking clarity.

	وَأَحَقُّهُمْ إِنْ كَانَ عِتْقٌ يُعْتَقُ	وَالنَّضْرُ أَقْرَبُ مَنْ أَسَرْتَ قَرَابَةً
	لِلَّهِ أَرْحَامٌ هُنَالِكَ تُشَقَّقُ	ظَلَّتْ سُيُوفُ بَنِي أَبِيهِ تَنُوشُهُ

“If anyone were to be spared, it should have been al-Naḍr, the one most deserving, the closest in kinship among his family.

But the swords of his own brothers struck him down; By God, how many bonds of kinship were severed that day”

(al-Miṣrī 1990, vol. 2, p. 386).

In the same context, the following verses attributed to the muk̲h̲aḍram poet ‘Amr b. Ma‘dīkarib (d. 21/641–42) and to ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661) likewise reflect the new poetic theme that praised the unity of Muslims under the banner of Islam, in place of the former tribal ‘aṣabiyya.

وَرَجَعْنَا بِهِ مَعًا إِخْوَانَا

وَائْتَلَفْنَا بِهِ وَكُنَّا عَدُوًّا

“We were once enemies, but through the Prophet God united us, and we became brothers.”

(al-Bayhaqī 1985, vol. 5, p. 369)

فَأَمْسَوْا بِحَمْدِ اللَّهِ مُجْتَمِعِي الشَّمْلِ

فَآمَنَ أَقْوَامٌ بِذَاكَ وَأَيْقَنُوا

“A people who believed in the Qur’an and accepted it without hesitation—thus, by God’s grace, they became a united community, freed from their former divisions.”

(Ibn Kat̲h̲īr 1988, vol. 3, p. 404)

These verses are significant in that they depict the transition from a fragmented tribal order to a unified ummah. Both of them illustrate how, despite the intertribal wars that characterized the Jāhiliyyah period, the Arabs ultimately became brothers through the Qur’anic command, “And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves” [Q3: 103], and through the teachings brought by the Prophet Muhammad. The unity expressed by ‘Amr and ‘Alī here is one that arises from the principles of Islam and the moral vision of the Qur’an. Other poets also echoed this ideal; for instance, the following verse by Nahār b. Tawsiʿa al-Yas̲h̲kurī (d. 85/704) provides a striking example.

إِذَا افْتَخَرُوا بِقَيسٍ أو تَمِيمِ

أَبِي الإسْلَامُ لا أَبَ لِي سِوَاهُ

“Let them boast of Qays or Tamīm if they wish! My father is Islam, and I have no father other than it.”

(al-Mubarrad 1997, vol. 3, p. 133)

The poet, with a clarity that can be considered radical for his time, explicitly rejects ‘aṣabiyya (narrow tribalism) and thereby repudiates the old Jāhiliyyah order. For him, social identity and the source of pride were no longer defined by a tribe-centered, divisive, and morally indifferent mentality. What should prevail, rather, is unity under Islam—an all-encompassing framework grounded in the integrative principles of tawhīd, justice, and taqwā (piety).

With this stance, the poet advocates a universal sense of ummah consciousness that transcends his own tribe, Banū Yas̲h̲kur, and embraces all Arabs and Muslims alike. From this perspective, by addressing powerful and influential tribes such as Qays and Tamīm—who prided themselves on lineage—he strikingly asserts that true honor lies not in noble ancestry, but in the spiritual and moral strength derived from unity under Islam. Thus, the poet demolishes the old order and proposes a new, universal identity. In the same vein, the following verses attributed to ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib by Ibn ‘Asākir similarly denounce tribal and genealogical superiority, affirming instead that religious virtue constitutes the true basis of excellence.

	فَلَا تَتْرُكِ التَّقْوَى اتِّكَالَا عَلَى النَّسَبِ	لَعَمْرُكَ مَا الْإِنْسَانُ إِلَّا بِدِينِهِ
	وَقَدْ وَضَعَ الشِّرْكُ الشَّرِيفَ أَبَا لَهَبِ	لَقَدْ رَفَعَ الإِسْلَامُ سَلْمَانَ فَارِسٍ

“By your life, a person is honored only by his religion. So do not rely on lineage while abandoning piety; for Islam has exalted Salmān the Persian, whereas polytheism has disgraced Abū Lahab of noble descent.”

(Ibn ‘Asākir 1995, vol. 21, p. 426)

The meaning of the verse clearly emphasizes that human superiority is not based on lineage or tribal affiliation, but rather on piety and adherence to the teachings of religion. Hence, these words constitute a direct critique of the tribal ‘aṣabiyya that dominated Jāhiliyyah society. The fact that Salmān al-Fārisī—who was non-Arab and without any kinship ties in Medina—was deemed superior to Abū Lahab, who belonged to one of the noblest Arab clans, on account of his faith and piety, demonstrates that genealogy and descent cannot serve as measures of merit or excellence. This, in turn, can be regarded as a direct reflection of divine revelation upon poetry. Indeed, the Qur’anic verse, “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you” [Q49:13], explicitly rejects ‘aṣabiyya—the pride founded upon tribal and genealogical identity—and instead declares that the truly noble are those distinguished by piety and righteous deeds. When asked about the meaning of “peoples and tribes” (s̲h̲u‘ūb and qabāʾil) in this verse, Ibn ‘Uthaymīn (1929–2001) explained that Allah intended to abolish the Jāhiliyyah custom of boasting, “I belong to such-and-such a tribe” and to replace it with a divine framework in which different peoples and tribes were created for the purpose of mutual recognition and social harmony (al-Tamīmī 2014, vol. 1, p. 209).

The following verses, attributed to a member of the family of Abū Bakra who resided in Baṣra, may also be evaluated within this context.

	لا تُعْدَلُ الشَّمْسُ بِالسِّرَاجِ	آلَ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ اسْتَفِيقُوا
	مِنْ دَعْوَةٍ فِي بَنِي عِلَاجِ	إنَّ وَلاءَ النَّبِيِّ أَعْلَى

“O family of Abū Bakra, awake! For the sun cannot be replaced by a small lamp. Indeed, allegiance to the Prophet is a nobler bond than descent from the lineage of Banū Ilāj.”

(Ibn Duraid 1991, p. 306)

In this verse, the primary emphasis lies not on lineage but on the superiority derived from one’s closeness to the Prophet Muhammad and from belonging to the community of Islam. From this perspective, the poet underscores that true distinction is not achieved through a tribe-centered approach. At precisely this point, one can observe the emergence of a new form of ‘aṣabiyya—one grounded in religious affiliation rather than kinship. Notably, the poet exhorts the family of Abū Bakra to attain the highest form of honor by adhering to the Prophet and aligning themselves with his cause. Recognizing this transformation, certain poets reinterpreted the traditional notion of tribal ‘aṣabiyya that they had once expressed during the Jāhiliyyah period, rearticulating it within an Islamic framework and imbuing it with a new moral and spiritual dimension. The following verses by ‘Abbās b. Mirdās (d. during the caliphate of ‘Uṯmān)—who praised his tribe for believing in and supporting the Prophet—serves as a representative example of this poetic transformation.

	وَفِي سُلَيْمٍ لِأَهْلِ الْفَخْرِ مُفْتَخَرُ	وَاذْكُرْ بَلَاءَ سُلَيْمٍ فِي مَوَاطِنِهَا
	دِينَ الرَّسُولِ وَأَمْرُ النَّاسِ مُشْتَجِر	قَوْمٌ هُمْ نَصَرُوا الرَّحْمَنَ وَاتَّبَعُوا

“Speak of the tribe of Sulaym and their noble deeds on the battlefield! For within the tribe of Sulaym lies an honor for those who seek honor. They are a people who aided the Most Merciful and followed the religion of the Messenger, when mankind was divided and confused in their affairs.”

(al-Sulamī 1991, p. 73; al-Miṣrī 1990, vol. 2, p. 466).

These verses vividly and concisely reflect the process of the Islamization of ‘aṣabiyya. In the first verse, the poet still draws upon the traditional theme of boasting and exalts the bravery of his tribe. Yet the source of pride is no longer confined to conventional military achievements in tribal warfare. In the second verse, a significant transformation occurs: tribal identity is redefined within a universal and religious framework through the notions of “aiding the Most Merciful” and “following the religion of the Messenger.” Here, the verb nasarū (“they aided”) signifies that the tribal spirit of valor and solidarity has been redirected in service of Islam. Thus, ‘Abbās b. Mirdās derives his tribe’s honor not from ancestral blood feuds, but from their early embrace of Islam and their loyalty to God and His Messenger. This marks a critical step in the transition from Jāhiliyyah ‘aṣabiyya to the consciousness of the Islamic ummah.

One of the most prominent examples demonstrating that ‘aṣabiyya underwent a transformation—from being tribe-centered during the Jāhiliyyah to religion-centered in the Islamic era—is Ḥassān b. T̲h̲ābit (al-Ḥārūt and ‘Abdullāh 2020). Celebrated even before Islam, his poetry embodies the characteristics of ‘aṣabiyya across these two periods and is therefore worthy of examination. According to reports, when Ḥassān attended the court of al-Nābigha al-Dhubyānī (d. ca. 604), who was honored at the Ukāz fair with a crimson leather tent, he recited the following verses in praise of his tribe.

	وَأَسْيَافُنَا يَقْطُرْنَ مِنْ نَجْدَةٍ دَمَا	لَنَا الجَفَنَاتُ الغُرُّ يَلْمَعْنَ بِالضُّحَى
	فَأكْرِمْ بِنَا خَالًا وأَكْرِمْ بِنَا ابْنَمَا	وَلَدْنَا بَنِي العَنْقَاءِ وَابْنَيْ مُحَرِّقٍ

“Ours are the cauldrons that gleam at mid-morning, and our swords drip with blood when we rush to aid.

We have begotten the sons of ‘Anqāʾ and Muḥarriq, how excellent are we as uncles, and how noble as sons!”

(Ibn Qutayba 2002, vol. 1, pp. 167–68; al-Iṣfahānī 2008, vol. 11, pp. 6–7)

In these pre-Islamic verses, Ḥassān b. T̲h̲ābit (al-Ḥārūt and ‘Abdullāh 2020) appears as a poet who glorifies his tribe and expresses the themes of generosity and heroism through a tribe-centered perspective. His approach, marked by ‘aṣabiyya and evident in his initial use of the particle lanā (ours), reflects a worldview rooted in tribal pride and collective self-assertion. After the year 610, however, this attitude came to be regarded as an undesirable position for Ḥassān. In place of it, he adopted a new poetic orientation—one devoted to the defense of the Prophet Muhammad and the religion of Islam. The following verses serve as a clear example of this transformation.

	عَلَى كُلِّ باغٍ مِنْ مَعَدٍّ ورَاغِمِ	مَنَعْنا رَسُولَ اللهِ إذْ حَلَّ وَسْطَنَا
	بِأسْيافِنَا مِنْ كُلِّ عادٍ وظالِمِ	مَنَعْناهُ لَمَّا حَلَّ بَيْنَ بُيُوتِنا

“When the Messenger of Allah came to us, we rose to protect him against every aggressor and foe from among Maʿadd.

And when he entered our homes, we defended him against all who were tyrannical and unjust.”

(al-Barḳūḳī 2008, p. 188)

Having lived partly during the Jāhiliyya period, Ḥassān b. T̲h̲ābit (al-Ḥārūt and ‘Abdullāh 2020), in his earlier poem, employed the pronoun lanā (ours) to foreground his tribe and lineage. In contrast, the later, Islamic-period Ḥassān used the verb mana‘nā (“we protected” or “we prevented”) to refer to the Medinan Muslims who supported the Prophet Muḥammad. In this poem, one of the most significant examples of the transformation of ‘aṣabiyya, Ḥassān no longer takes pride in tribal generosity or valor. Indeed, the motif of heroism is still present, as in his pre-Islamic verses, yet the nuance here lies in the object of that heroism: it is now exercised for a community united by faith, not for a kin-based collective. A similar theme can be found in the qasīda composed by ‘Abbās b. Mirdās after the Battle of Hunayn, in which he responds to the ‘aṣabiyya-based call of his kinsmen from the Hawāzin tribe with the following lines.

	ثَدْيٌ تَمُدُّ بِهِ هَوَازِنُ أَيْبَسُ	تَدْعُو هَوَازِنُ بِالْإِخَاوَةِ بَيْنَنَا
	عَيْرٌ تَعَاقَبَهُ السِّبَاعُ مُفَرَّسُ	حَتَّى تَرَكْنَا جَمْعَهُمْ وَكَأَنَّهُ
	مَصَالًا لَكُنَّا الْأَقْرَبِينَ نُتَابِعُ	نَذُودُ أَخَانَا عَنْ أَخِينَا وَلَوْ نَرَى

“The Hawāzin called upon us by the bond of brotherhood, yet that call was to a breast long dried of its milk.

At last, we abandoned their company—as if they were wild asses torn apart by beasts of prey.

We drove our brothers away from our brothers, for had we deemed aggression to be just, we would have followed the Hawāzin themselves.”

(al-Sulamī 1991, pp. 89, 109)

Based on the foregoing explanations, it can be stated that understanding the structure of pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arab society is essential for grasping the depth of this social transformation. At the center of this structure stood a tribal system founded upon ‘aṣabiyya, together with its cultural manifestation—poetry. Indeed, the Arabs regarded poetry not merely as an aesthetic pursuit but as a fundamental medium through which collective identity, social prestige, and political influence were expressed and perpetuated. Poets, with their extraordinary command of rhetoric, transformed ordinary aspects of daily life—such as a horse’s gallop, the ruins of a deserted campsite, or the darkness of night—into literary images that glorified tribal values and shaped communal memory. The same holds true for ‘aṣabiyya, which functioned as an indispensable pillar maintaining tribal unity. ‘Aṣabiyya was not limited to the conflicts that arose between rival tribes; it was also vividly present in poetic compositions that exalted the tribe and its noble ancestors (al-Tag̲h̲libī 1991, pp. 78–90). During the Jāhiliyya period, this was made possible by the Arabs’ strong sense of harmony between form (lafẓ) and meaning (ma‘nā). Hence, the aesthetic power of poetry could not be separated from its socio-political function. Through their most eloquent poets, tribes constructed their legitimacy, satirized their rivals, and secured their social prestige. Poetic contests held at marketplaces and the practice of rajm—public criticism of poorly received poems—reveal that poetry also served as a mechanism of social control, praise, and censure. It was upon this deeply entrenched, tribe-centered cultural fabric—both politically fragmented and rhetorically vibrant—that the revelation of Islam was sent down, initiating one of the most profound transformations in Arab intellectual and moral history.

Modern scholarship has revealed that Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islamic) poetry possessed a religious and textual function that went far beyond being a mere reflection of Arab cultural life. However, the nature of this function has often been misinterpreted and confined within a narrow philological framework. Contrary to the widespread assumption, the religious role of Jāhiliyyah poetry was not limited to serving as a linguistic repository for the explication of obscure Qur’anic or ḥadīt̲h̲ expressions, nor merely to exemplify archaic lexical usages. In essence, this poetry constituted the collective consciousness of pre-Islamic Arab society. It is precisely within this context that the poetry dealing with the theme of ‘aṣabiyya stands out—not as a reflection of idolatry’s ritual dimension, but as a corpus of reference texts that articulated the moral code and tribal identity of the Arabs (al-Tag̲h̲libī 1991, pp. 23–29). Therefore, its genuine religious function must be sought not in its later philological utility but in its original historical setting, where it represented and continuously reproduced a socio-cultural system of belief and values (Araz 2025, pp. 36–38). While its socio-cultural mission cannot be denied, the distinctive epistemological role of poetry in the Islamic period lies in its contribution to the syntactic and rhetorical ground upon which the Qur’an was revealed. Indeed, the subtle stylistic sophistication of Jāhiliyyah poetry, the poets’ extraordinary mastery of diction, and their aesthetic balance between form (lafẓ) and meaning (ma‘nā) collectively constitute an indispensable part of the historical and linguistic context that renders the Qur’an’s i‘jāz—its inimitability—intelligible. This literary heritage provided the necessary background for the phenomenon of taḥaddī—the Qur’anic challenge that no speech comparable to it could ever be produced—to be meaningful and persuasive to its immediate audience. Thus, early Arabic poetry, particularly that which treated the theme of ‘aṣabiyya, must be understood not merely as a cultural treasure but also as a theological instrument—both as a historical prerequisite and as a demonstration of the Qur’an’s miraculous faṣāḥa and balāgha (i‘jāz al-Qur’an) (for the level of rhetorical mastery attained by pre-Islamic Arabs and its significance for the doctrine of ijāz, see S̲h̲ākir 2001, p. 133). It is precisely this overlooked connection between Jāhiliyyah poetry and i‘jāz that underlies the sharp criticism directed at certain Orientalists and their Muslim followers who denied the authenticity of pre-Islamic poetry and claimed that it was fabricated in imitation of the Qur’an. Such allegations—most notably advanced by D. S. Margoliouth (d. 1940) and later propagated in the Islamic world by Tāhā Ḥusayn (d. 1973)—provoked strong objections for having ignored the intrinsic relationship between the two (for major Orientalist positions on this issue, see Badawī 1979, p. 17).

Poems dealing with the theme of ‘aṣabiyya must also be approached from the analytical perspective outlined above. In addition to its semantic transformation, the syntactic transformation of ‘aṣabiyya deserves particular attention. As can be observed in the poetry of Ḥassān b. T̲h̲ābit (al-Ḥārūt and ‘Abdullāh 2020), the tribal or self-centered ‘aṣabiyya of the pre-Islamic period is commonly expressed through the plural pronoun لَنَا (lanā)—“for us” or “belongs to us.” However, with the religious and social changes brought by Islam, this pronoun was retained grammatically but its contextual value within the sentence underwent a notable shift. The poets who lived through both periods—the muk̲h̲aḍrams—are thus of great significance for tracing these transformations (for example, see al-Hārūt and al-Masriqī, pp. 388–400). Indeed, the generation that witnessed the beginning of revelation in 610 CE had been raised entirely within the cultural milieu of the Jāhiliyya. Consequently, many of the customs, traditions, and socio-cultural practices of the pre-Islamic period persisted during the earliest years of Islam. For this reason, analyzing the intellectual and moral changes that emerged with the Qur’an’s revelation under the specific rubric of Ṣadr al-Islām (the formative or early Islamic period) offers a more coherent and historically grounded framework. It should be recalled that the period inaugurated by the revelation of the Qur’an is generally referred to as the “Islamic era.” As Ḍayf (d. 2005) has observed, this era extends up to the establishment of the ‘Abbāsid dynasty (Ḍayf, n.d., p. 28). Literary historians, however, subdivide it into two distinct stages: the first, known as Ṣadr al-Islām, and the second, corresponding to the Umayyad era. When the evolution of Arabic literary criticism is taken into account, this distinction proves to be both necessary and accurate. For without employing the conceptual framework of Ṣadr al-Islām, a direct classification under the general term “Islamic period” would risk overlooking the transitional character of the decades immediately following 610 CE—years that embodied both continuity with and departure from the Jāhiliyyah ethos.

From the poems of poets such as Ḥassān b. T̲h̲ābit (al-Ḥārūt and ‘Abdullāh 2020) and ‘Abbās b. Mirdās —who shifted from tribal ‘aṣabiyya toward the consciousness of the ummah—one should not infer that ‘aṣabiyya disappeared entirely from the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century. Even after 610 CE, tribal organization and solidarity continued to play a significant role and, in fact, became crucial elements in the expansion of Islam. The establishment of cities such as Basra and Kufa, as well as the conquests of Iraq and Persia, were all shaped to a considerable degree by tribal ‘aṣabiyya. Extending this observation further, one finds that during the caliphate of ʿAlī b. Abī Tālib, under the Umayyads, and even throughout the ‘Abbāsid period, a form of tribal-centered ‘aṣabiyya persisted—albeit in new political and social contexts (for detailed discussion, see Guzmán 2004, pp. 58–96). This continuity demonstrates that ‘aṣabiyya did not undergo a linear or uniform transformation; rather, it experienced a dynamic and multi-layered evolution throughout Islamic history.

5. Conclusions

In the Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islamic) period, ‘aṣabiyya—tribal solidarity grounded in kinship and blood ties—constituted the very foundation of social organization. Within this framework, individuals belonging to the same tribe supported one another in all social affairs, whether in war or peace, irrespective of motive or outcome. The influence of ‘aṣabiyya extended beyond Ayyām al-‘Arab (intertribal warfare); it was equally decisive in matters of marriage, commerce, and literature. The panegyrics and lampoons composed by poets and orators in praise of their own tribes and in satire of their rivals vividly illustrate the pervasive role of ‘aṣabiyya in shaping the social and cultural life of the time. With the emergence of Islam after 610 CE, however, the concept of ‘aṣabiyya underwent a profound transformation, acquiring a religious and ethical dimension. The bonds among individuals were no longer defined by lineage or blood-based solidarity but were restructured around faith-based brotherhood (uk̲h̲uwwa īmāniyya). In this new moral order, the Qur’anic revelation reoriented tribal affiliation toward the ideal of a unified ummah—a community bound together not by ancestry but by shared belief, justice, and piety.

In light of the findings of this study, it can be concluded that ‘aṣabiyya, which in the Jāhiliyyah period was characterized by a tribe-centered structure, acquired a religiously oriented character in the early years of Islam. This transformation demonstrates that ‘aṣabiyya did not disappear entirely from Arab society but rather persisted in a new form, adapting to the emerging Islamic worldview. More precisely, the tribal loyalty exemplified by the Jāhiliyyah poet ‘Amr b. Kult̲h̲ūm—who glorified his tribe under all circumstances—was replaced by the faith-centered solidarity of Ḥassān b. T̲h̲ābit (al-Ḥārūt and ‘Abdullāh 2020), who satirized the polytheists and composed poetry in defense of Islam, unity, and brotherhood. Thus, solidarity based on blood kinship was redefined as a sense of unity founded upon the bond of faith—the ummah. As a result of this transformation, poets began to highlight themes such as Islam, the Prophet, religion, and tawhīd (divine unity) in their works, whereas in the Jāhiliyyah period, poetic themes typically revolved around tribal leaders, heroic warriors, and tribal glory. Undoubtedly, this intellectual and thematic shift in the conception of ‘aṣabiyya profoundly affected not only the content of poetry but also its syntactic and rhetorical structures. Therefore, the evolution of ‘aṣabiyya—from a kinship-based solidarity to a faith-based brotherhood—marks a radical transformation in the value system of Arab society. It redefined both individual identity and collective belonging, demonstrating how deeply the Qur’anic revelation reshaped the Arab moral and cultural consciousness. Consequently, ‘aṣabiyya should not merely be viewed as a historical form of tribal cohesion, but as a key analytical concept for understanding the social, religious, and aesthetic transformation of Arabic poetry.

As evidenced by the poems examined in this study, with the revelation of the Qur’an, Arab poets who embraced Islam adopted a simpler, clearer, and more content-oriented style in expressing their themes. In contrast, the Jāhiliyyah poetry, particularly those rich in ḥamāsah motifs, exhibited a more complex syntax and ornate, striking expressions. This difference indicates that poetic style was not merely a matter of individual artistic preference but a reflection of the broader transformation in belief, values, and thematic orientation brought about by Islam. Accordingly, the variation in syntactic and rhetorical features depending on thematic content serves as an important indicator in understanding the linguistic evolution of Arabic poetry.

Finally, this study provides a foundation for further exploring how the rhetorical principles of the Qur’an were reflected in early Islamic poetry and oratory. In this regard, a comparative examination may be conducted on how major Jāhiliyyah poetic genres, madḥ (praise), hijāʾ’ (satire), and taḥaddī (challenge), were replaced or reinterpreted by the Qur’an’s modes of proclamation, admonition, and invitation. Moreover, an analysis of how the Qur’an’s rhythmic discourse and harmonious structure influenced khiṭābah (Arabic rhetoric) could further illuminate the stylistic transformation it initiated. Thus, this research not only contributes to understanding the thematic transformation of ‘aṣabiyya but also provides a methodological framework for studying the rhetorical development of Arabic poetry and eloquence in the early Islamic era.