Ṭāriḳ ibn Ziyād ibn ʿAbd Allāh

Ṭāriḳ b. Ziyād b. Ziyād b. ʿAbd Allāh, Berber commander of the Muslim troops who undertook the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula in 92/711; his birth and death dates are uncertain. Ibn Id̲h̲ārī gives a complete genealogy of him and connects him with the tribe of the Nafza. Idrīsī says he was a Berber of the Zanāta; Ibn Ḵh̲aldūn calls him Ṭāriḳ b. Ziyād al-Lait̲h̲ī. Others again say he was a Persian, a native of Hamadān. Regardless, at this time, he was residing in Tangier, exercising the role of governor on behalf of the wālī of Ifrīḳiya Mūsā b. Nuṣayr [q.v.].

As in all issues concerning the early stages of the Muslim presence in al-Andalus, it is no simple matter, considering the mass of contradictory data supplied by the Arab sources, either to draw conclusions regarding the personality of Ṭāriḳ, or to determine with any precision the circumstances of his entry into al-Andalus. The question is so tangled, that even an interpretation of events as far removed from classical conceptions as that of J. Vallvé (Nuevas ideas sobre la conquista árabe de España, Madrid 1989), who maintains that the Muslim disembarkation took place at Cartagena, to the south-east of the Peninsula, while apparently difficult to accept in its entirety nevertheless demonstrates the existence of various obscure points necessitating a revision of certain received ideas relating to the conquest of al-Andalus.

The difficulties facing the historian of the conquest of al-Andalus result essentially from the absence not only of contemporary texts, but even of those of a period reasonably close to the events described (with the exception, however, of two Christian sources, the Chronica byzantia-arabica of 741 and the Continuatio Hispana of 754, both extremely brief). The earliest surviving sources, the Futūḥ Miṣr of the Egyptian Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam and the Taʾrīk̲h̲ of Ibn Ḥabīb in al-Mag̲h̲āmī’s edition, both from the 3rd/9th century, unfortunately demonstrate a marked propensity to accept legendary accounts, or to exaggerate the quantities of booty subsequently amassed in the country. The sources available are often late works, juxtaposing material of very diverse provenance and uneven worth, the utilisation of which merits a thorough historiographical analysis, a project yet to be undertaken. Such is the case, significantly, of two anonymous texts which are fundamental for the history of the first century of the Muslim presence in al-Andalus, the Ak̲h̲bār mad̲j̲mūʿa and the Fatḥ al-Andalus, on which contemporary criticism is in disarray, with opinions ranging from those who believe that these involve the embryonic written version of ancient oral traditions, to those who maintain that these are simply late compilations based on summaries of earlier texts (P. Chalmeta, Invasión e islamización, 50; L. Molina, Los Ak̲h̲bār mad̲j̲mūʿa y la historiografía árabe sobre el período omeya en al-Andalus, in al-Qanṭara, x [1989], 513-42, and the Estudio of his edition of the Fatḥ). All of this should not obscure the fact that the general lines of the historical record remain clearly established, and that it is appropriate to take account of them.

According to the opinion most widely held among chroniclers, Ṭāriḳ b. Ziyād was a Berber client of Mūsā b. Nuṣayr [q.v.], having participated under the latter’s orders in the conquest of the Mag̲h̲rib, as commander of the vanguard. When Mūsā returned to Ifrīḳiya, he left Ṭāriḳ in charge of a contingent of troops, most of them Berber, based in Tangier. From there, he made contact with the governor of Ceuta, the legendary Count Julian. This individual, probably a Visigoth—information concerning one of his descendants gives the nisba al-Ḳūṭī—but at all events a dependant of the Visigothic king of Toledo, incited Ṭāriḳ to invade the Peninsula. Some versions allege that Julian’s representative was none other than Mūsā himself, and that the latter succeeded in obtaining authorisation from the caliph in Damascus, but considering the later course of events, it seems more likely that Ṭāriḳ acted on his own initiative without waiting for the explicit consent of his superior.

Before Ṭāriḳ’s expedition, there had been one or several minor incursions into the coastal region of al-Andalus, the most significant—and according to many authors, the only one—having been led by Ṭarīf, another Berber, with a small contingent of five hundred men, undertaken during Ramaḍān 96 (July 710). Finally, in the spring of the following year (Rad̲j̲ab 92/April 711), with forces virtually exclusively Berber, Ṭāriḳ crossed the Strait on boats supplied by Julian, and disembarked at the foot of a mountain which was henceforward to bear his name, Gibraltar (Ḏj̲abal Ṭāriḳ). Numerous Arab sources agree in fixing the number of ships at four, and the strength of the commando force—in one or several waves—at 12,000. These figures cannot be verified absolutely, but they are probably not far from the truth, since it is unlikely that the fleet available for crossing the Strait could have been much larger, or that Ṭāriḳ’s forces could have been reduced to a few hundreds, if their later successes are anything to judge by. This indicates that the crossing must have taken place at a leisurely pace, with dozens of trips for each boat, and over several days, and all of this without any serious resistance from the majority of the local inhabitants. With prompt action, the latter could have foiled the invasion with ease. In the event, the landings took place either with the connivance or the indifference of the indigenous people.

The Visigothic king Roderic, whose principal concern at this time was fighting the Basques, hastily led out his army to confront the Muslims, who in the meantime had built fortresses in Gibraltar, from where they conducted minor raids into the surrounding countryside to obtain provisions. The encounter took place at the end of Ramaḍān and the beginning of S̲h̲awwāl (July) near a river which may legitimately be identified with the Guadalete or the Barbate—not far from the lagoon of La Janda—but, in any case, in a place near to the point of landing. This means that in three months or thereabouts, the Muslims had scarcely moved at all, giving the Spanish troops time to coalesce into a powerful army, rather than exploiting the element of surprise. From a strategic perspective, this decision was ill-advised. There can be little doubt that the defeat inflicted on Roderic’s army was largely due to the fact that a large contingent of his troops, traditionally identified with supporters of the family of the previous king, Witiza, contributed actively or passively to the rout and death of Roderic. Bearing in mind the behaviour of the Muslims before the battle, and of Witiza’s supporters during it, it is to be doubted whether any of the protagonists could have imagined that the entire Peninsula was to fall into the hands of the Muslims: neither Ṭāriḳ’s soldiers, who had just spent three months on a scrap of land with no clear idea of what to do next, nor the traitors of the Visigothic army whose sole objective was to regain power and eliminate Roderic. Nevertheless, as the result of an unexpected and uninspiring victory, Ṭāriḳ was made aware that the Visigothic state had suffered a heavy blow and that its internal cohesion was vastly inferior to what he had imagined. He now understood that he held a unique opportunity to make himself master of the country, or simply to transform what had begun as a coastal raiding expedition into a profitable campaign against the affluent cities of the interior.

The next stage of Ṭāriḳ’s itinerary was Écija, where the remnants of the Visigothic army, including Witiza’s supporters, had taken refuge. The battle was as hard-fought as that of Guadalete, and again, victory fell to the Muslims, who this time, according to some sources, were helped by Julian himself. The defeated ¶ army took refuge in the town of Écija, and capitulated soon after. From this time onwards, there was nothing to impede Ṭāriḳ’s advance; he divided his forces into four groups, setting out for Málaga, Granada, Cordova (under Mug̲h̲īt̲h̲ al-Rūmī) and Toledo (under Ṭāriḳ in person). The capital of the Visigothic kingdom, abandoned by its dignitaries, fell without resistance into the hands of Ṭāriḳ, who according to various sources, continued his march towards the north, reaching Guadalajara and then Astorga. The encounter between Ṭāriḳ and Mūsā b. Nuṣayr, who had in the meantime arrived in the Peninsula with a predominantly Arab army, took place at Toledo or in its vicinity. Mūsā seems to have been intent on punishing his subordinate severely, but ultimately confined himself to a harsh reprimand. From this time onwards, as a personality Ṭāriḳ fell into obscurity, decidedly overshadowed by his patron, with whom he returned to the east in 95/714. His last known action was involvement in a trial against Mūsā; still resenting the humiliation inflicted on him at Toledo, he readily joined the accusers.

(L. Molina)

Bibliography

1. Sources.

Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr, ed. C. Torrey, Yale Oriental Series, 1922 index

al-Ḍabbī, Bug̲h̲yat al-multamis, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana, vol. iii., Madrid 1885, N°. 864, p. 315

Ibn Ḥabīb, Taʾrīk̲h̲, ed. Aguadé, 136-49

al-Idrīsī, Descr., p. 176

Ak̲h̲bār mad̲j̲mūʿa, ed. Lafuente y Al, cantara (Ajbar machmuâ), Madrid 1867, text, ¶ p. 4 sqq., transl., p. 18 sqq.

Fatḥ al-Andalus, ed. L. Molina, 11-37

Ibn ʿId̲h̲ārī, al-Bayān al-mug̲h̲rib, ii, 4-23

al-Raḳīḳ, Taʾrīk̲h̲ Ifrīḳiya wa ’l-Mag̲h̲rib, ed. Zaydān and Mūsā, 38-56

Ibn al-S̲h̲abbāṭ, Ṣilat al-simṭ, ed. al-ʿAbbādī, 131-62

D̲h̲ikr bilād al-Andalus, ed. and tr. Molina, i, 97-100

Ibn al-Ḳūtiyya, Taʾrīk̲h̲ Iftitāḥ al-Andalus, Madrid 1926 (Historia de la conquista de España de Abenalcotía el Cordobes, transl. J. Ribera), text, p. 3 sqq., transl., p. 1 sqq.

Maḳḳarī, Nafḥ al-ṭīb, ed. I. ʿAbbās, i, 229-90.

the geographers, s. v. Ḏj̲abal Ṭāriḳ

al-Maḳḳarī, Analectes, Index

R. Dozy, Histoire de l’Espagne musulmane, ii. 32 sqq.

do., Recherches sur l’histoire et la littérature de l’Espagne, 3rd ed., i. 21 sqq.

Fournel, Les Berbers, Paris 1875, i. 236 sqq.

E. Saavedra, Estudio sobre la invasión de los árabes en España, Madrid 1892.

2. Studies. To the classic works by Dozy and Lévi-Provençal should be added those of J. Vallvé, Nuevas ideas sobre la conquista árabe de España, Madrid 1989, and P. Chalmeta, Invasión e islamización, Madrid 1994

on the itinerary of the Muslim forces, C. Sanchez Albornoz, El itinerario de la conquista de España por los musulmanes, in Cuadernos de Historia de España, x (1948), 21-74, and E. de Santiago, Los itinerarios de la conquista musulmana, in Cuadernos de Historia del Islam, iii (1971), 51-65.

Citation " Ṭāriḳ b. Ziyād." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online , 2013. Reference. Jim Harlow. 01 February 2013 <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-isla...>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Wikipedia

Tariq ibn Ziyad (Arabic: طارق بن زياد‎, died 720) was a Muslim, a Berber general who led the Islamic conquest of Visigothic Hispania in 711-718 A.D. He is considered to be one of the most important military commanders in Iberian history. Under the orders of the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I he led a large army from the north coast of Morocco, consolidating his troops at a large hill now known as Gibraltar. The name "Gibraltar" is the Spanish derivation of the Arabic name Jabal Tāriq (جبل طارق), meaning "mountain of Tariq",[1] named after him.

Most medieval historians give little or no information about Tariq's origins or nationality. Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam, Ibn al-Athir, Al-Tabari and Ibn Khaldun [2] do not say anything, and have been followed in this by modern works such as the Encyclopedia of Islam and Cambridge History of Islam. There are three different accounts given by a few Arabic histories which all seem to date from between 400 and 500 years after Tariq's time.

These are that:

He was a Persian from Hamadan.[3]

He was a member, or freedman[4]

of the Sadif clan of the Kindah.[5]

He was a Berber from North Africa. Even here there are several different versions, and modern workers who accept a Berber origin tend to settle on one version or another without giving any reason for so doing.[6] The Berber tribes associated with these ancestries (Zenata, Walhāṣ, Warfajūma, Nafzā) were, in Tariq's time, all resident in Tripolitania.[7] The earliest reference seems to be the 12th-century geographer al-Idrisi, who referred to him as Tariq bin Abd 'Allah bin Wanamū al-Zanātī, without the usual bin Ziyad.[8]

The 14th-century historian Ibn Idhari gives two versions of Tariq's ancestry (the differences may be caused by copyist errors). He is referred to as:

Tāriq bin Zīyād bin Abd 'Allah bin Walghū bin Warfajūm bin Nabarghāsan bin Walhāṣ bin Yaṭūfat bin Nafzāw (Arabic: طارق بن زياد بن عبد الله بن ولغو بن ورفجوم بن نبرغاسن بن ولهاص بن يطوفت بن نفزاو‎) and also as,

Tāriq bin Zīyād bin Abd' Allah bin Rafhū bin Warfajūm bin Yanzghāsan bin Walhāṣ bin Yaṭūfat bin Nafzāw (Arabic: طارق بن زياد بن عبد الله بن رفهو بن ورفجوم بن ينزغاسن بن ولهاص بن يطوفت بن نفزاو‎).[9]

Most historians, Arab and Spanish, seem to agree that he was a slave[10] of the emir of Ifriqiya (North Africa), Musa bin Nusayr, who gave him his freedom and appointed him a general in his army. But his descendants centuries later denied he had ever been Musa's slave.

The earliest reference to him seems to be in the Mozarab Chronicle, written in Latin in 754, which although written within living memory of the conquest of Spain, refers to him erroneously as Taric Abuzara.[11]

Tariq's name is often associated with that of a young slave girl, Umm Ḥakīm, who is said to have crossed to Spain with him; but the nature of their relationship is left obscure.[12]

Bibliography

1. "History of Gibraltar". Government of Gibraltar. Retrieved 2007-12-20.

2. al-Maqqari, p. 255 of English translation by Gayangos, states that Ibn Khaldun referred to Tariq as al-Laythī but this does not appear in modern editions of Ibn Khaldun's works.

3. Akhbār majmūa, p. 20 of Spanish translation, p. 6 of Arabic text. al-Maqqari, see p. 266 of English translation by Gayangos.

4. Akhbār majmūa, p. 20 & 21 of Spanish translation, p. 6 of Arabic text.

5. See also Ibn Taghribirdi, p. 278 of French translation, and Ibn Khallikan, vol. 3 p. 476 of English translation (which also refers to him as a Berber). Also mentioned by al-Maqqari, p. 253 & 266 of English translation, together with a possible Lakhmid origin.

6. e.g. M. De Slane, in an editorial note to the French translation of Ibn Khaldun's Kitab al-Ibar, vol. 1 p. 215 opines that he belonged to the Walhāṣ tribe. Numerous more recent works give his tribe as Warfajūma, e.g. van Sertima's Golden Age of the Moor p. 54. Both these opinions derive from Ibn Idhari, whose text (quoted above) does not single out one tribe.

7. Yves Modéran, Les Maures et L'Afrique Romaine (IVe-VIIe Siècle). Ecole Française de Rome, 2003. ISBN 2-7283-0640-0.

8. al-Idrisi, Arabic text fasc. 5 p. 539-540; vol. 2 p. 17 of French translation. "Wanamū" is uncertain, as the various manuscripts differ in spelling this name.

9. Ibn Idhari, Arabic text vol. 1 p. 43 & vol. 2 p. 5 respectively.

10. Ibn Khallikan, vol. 3 p. 81 of English translation, even refers to him as "Târik Ibn Nusair", but as De Slane says in a footnote, this is probably caused by accidental omission of the words "freedman of Musa".

11. Para. 34 of the Chronicle. There is some confusion with Tarif ibn Malik, as noted by al-Maqqari. For a recent discussion see the article by Enrique Gozalbes Cravioto cited below.

12. See, for example, numerous references in Ibn Abd al-Hakam, and some in Akhbār majmūa ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Ref: http://www.biografiku.com/2010/04/biografi-thariq-bin-ziyad-penaklu...

"Thariq bin Ziyad bin Abdullah bin Walgho bin Walfajun bin Niber Ghasin bin Walhas bin Yathufat bin Nafzau"

'يا جنودي إلى أين تهربون؟ خلفك البحر ، أمامك العدو. الشيء الوحيد المتبقي هو الأمل في شجاعتهم ومثابرتهم. تذكر أنك في هذه الأرض أكثر تعاسة من الأيتام الجالسين على مائدة سيد بخيل. عدوك أمامك محمي بجيش عديد ؛ عنده رجال كثيرون ، ولكنك كعضدك الوحيد سيوفك ... »

«'O my soldiers, where are you going to flee? Behind you is the sea, in front of you is the enemy. The only thing left is the hope of their courage and their perseverance. Remember that in this land you are more unhappy than orphans sitting at the table of a stingy lord. Your enemy is before you, protected by a numerous army; He has men in abundance, but you, as your only support, have your own swords ... »

«Å mine soldater, hvor skal dere flykte? Bak dere er havet, foran dere fienden. Det eneste som er igjen er håpet om deres mot og deres bestandighet. Husk at i dette landet er dere mer ulykkelige enn foreldreløs som sitter ved bordet til gjerrig herre. Deres fiende er foran dere, beskyttet av en tallrik hær; han har menn i overflod, men dere, som deres eneste støtte, har deres egne sverd...»