What is an Arab? Ethnic terms are notoriously difficult to define, and Arab is not among the easiest. One possible definition may be set aside at once. The Arabs may be a nation; they are not as yet a nationality in the legal sense. A man who calls himself an Arab may be described in his passport as a national of Saudi Arabia, one of the two Yemens, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, the Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, or any other of the group of states that identify themselves as Arab. Some of them—such as Saudi Arabia, the Union of Arab Emirates, the Syrian and Egyptian Arab Republics—have even adopted the word Arab in their official nomenclature. Their citizens are not, however, designated simply as Arabs. There are Arab states, and indeed a league of Arab states; but as yet there is no single Arab state of which all Arabs are nationals. But if Arabism has no legal content, it is none the ...
Contents
Preface / 7
Introduction / 9
I Arabia Before Islam / 21 II Muhammad and the Rise of Islam / 36 III The Age of the Conquests / 49 IV The Arab Kingdom / 64 V The Islamic Empire / 80 VI “The Revolt of Islam” / 99 VII The Arabs in Europe / 115 VIII Islamic Civilisation / I31 IX The Arabs in Eclipse / i44 X The Impact of the West / 164
Chronological Table / 179
Bibliography / 184
Index / 194
PREFACE
THIS is not so much a history of the Arabs as an essay in interpretation. Rather than compress so vast a subject into a bare outline of dates and events, I have sought to isolate and examine certain basic issues—the place of the Arabs in human history, their identity, their achievement, and the salient characteristics of the several ages of their development. In a work of this nature it is not possible nor indeed desirable to acknowledge the sources of every point of fapLand interpretation. Orientalists will recognise at once my debt to the masters, past and present, of Islamic historical studies.
For the rest, I can only express my general indebtedness to my predecessors, teachers, colleagues and students who have all helped, in different ways, to form the view of Arab history set forth in these pages. My special thanks are due to Professor Sir Hamilton Gibb, the late Professors U. Heyd and D. S. Rice for reading and criticising my manuscript, to Miss J. Bridges for preparing the Index, and to Professor A. T. Hatto for many useful suggestions.
B.L.
Introduction
What is an Arab? Ethnic terms are notoriously difficult to define, and Arab is not among the easiest. One possible definition may be set aside at once. The Arabs may be a nation; they are not as yet a nationality in the legal sense. A man who calls himself an Arab may be described in his passport as a national of Saudi Arabia, one of the two Yemens, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, the Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, or any other of the group of states that identify themselves as Arab. Some of them—such as Saudi Arabia, the Union of Arab Emirates, the Syrian and Egyptian Arab Republics—have even adopted the word Arab in their official nomenclature. Their citizens are not, however, designated simply as Arabs. There are Arab states, and indeed a league of Arab states; but as yet there is no single Arab state of which all Arabs are nationals.
But if Arabism has no legal content, it is none the less real. The pride of the Arab in his Arabdom, his consciousness of the bonds that bind him to other Arabs past and present, are no less intense. Is the unifying factor then one of language—is an Arab simply one who speaks Arabic as his mother tongue? It is a simple and at first sight a satisfying answer—yet there are difficulties. Is the Arabic-speaking Jew from Iraq or the Yemen or the Arabic-speaking Christian of Egypt or Lebanon an Arab ? The enquirer could receive different answers amongst these people themselves and among their Muslim neighbours. Is even the Arabic-speaking Muslim of Egypt an Arab ? Many consider themselves such, but not all, and the term Arab is still used colloquially in both Egypt and Iraq to distinguish the Bedouin of the surrounding deserts from the indigenous peasantry of the great river valleys. In some quarters the repellent word Arabophone is used to distinguish those who merely speak Arabic from those who are truly Arabs.
A gathering of Arab leaders some years ago defined ah Arab in these words: “Whoever lives in our country, speaks our language, is brought up in our culture and takes pride in our glory is one of us.” We may compare with this a definition from a well-qualified Western source, Professor Gibb of Harvard: “All those are Arabs for whom the central fact of history is the mission of Muhammad and the memory of the Arab Empire and who in addition cherish the Arabic tongue and its cultural heritage as their common possession.” Neither definition, it will be noted, is purely linguistic. Both add a cultural, one at least a religious, qualification. Both must be interpreted historically, for it is only through the history of the peoples called Arab that we can hope to understand the meaning of the term from its primitive restricted use in ancient times to its vast but vaguely delimited extent of meaning today. As we shall see, through this long period the significance of the word Arab has been steadily changing, and as the change has been slow, complex and extensive, we shall find that the term may be used in several different senses at one and the same time and that a standard general definition of its content has rarely been possible.
The origin of the word Arab is still obscure, though phil¬ologists have offered explanations of varying plausibility. For some, the word is derived from a Semitic root meaning “west”, and was first applied by the inhabitants of Mesopotamia to the peoples to the west of the Euphrates valley. This etymology is questionable on purely linguistic grounds and is also open to the objection that the term was used by the Arabs themselves and that a people is not likely to describe itself by a word indicating its position relative to another. More profitable are the attempts to link the word with the concept of nomadism. This has been done in various ways; by connecting it with the Hebrew “ ‘Arabha”—dark land, or steppe land; with the Hebrew “ ‘Erebh”—mixed and hence unorganised, as opposed to the organised and ordered life of the sedentary communities, rejected and despised by the nomads; with the root “ 'Abhor” —to move or pass—from which our word Hebrew is probably derived. The association with nomadism is borne out by the fact that the Arabs themselves seem to have used the word at an early date to distinguish the Bedouin from the Arabic-speaking town and village dwellers and indeed continue to do so to some extent at the present day. The traditional Arab etymology deriving the name from a verb meaning “to express” or “enunciate” is almost certainly a reversal of the historic process. A parallel case may be found in the connexion between German “deuten”—“to make clear to the people”, and “deutsch”—originally “of the people”.
The earliest account that has come down to us of Arabia and the Arabs is that of the tenth chapter of Genesis, where many of the peoples and districts of the peninsula are mentioned by name. The word Arab, however, does not occur in this text, and makes its first appearance in an Assyrian inscription of 853 B.c. in which King Shalmaneser III records the defeat by the Assyrian forces of a conspiracy of rebellious princelings; one of them was “Gindibu the Aribi” who appropriately contributed 1,000 camels to the forces of the confederacy. From that time until the sixth century B.C. there are frequent references in Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions to Aribi, Arabu, and Urbi. These inscriptions record the receipt of tribute from Aribi ? rulers, usually including camels and other items indicative of a desert origin, and occasionally tell of military expeditions into Aribi land. Some of the later inscriptions are accompanied by illustrations of the Aribi and their camels. These campaigns against the Aribi were clearly not wars of conquest but punitive expeditions intended to recall the erring nomads to their duties as Assyrian vassels. They served the general purpose of securing the Assyrian borderlands and lines of communication. The Aribi of the inscriptions are a nomadic people living in the far north of Arabia, probably in the Syro-Arabian desert. They do not include the flourishing sedentary civilisation of south-western Arabia which is separately mentioned in Assyrian records. They may be identified with the Arabs of the later books of the Old Testament. Towards 530 B.C. the term Arabaya begins to appear in Persian cuneiform documents.
The earliest classical reference is in Aeschylus, who in “Prometheus” mentions Arabia as a remote land whence come warriors with sharp-pointed spears. The “Magos Arabos” mentioned in the “Persians” as one of the commanders of4 Xerxes’ army may possibly also be an Arab. It is in Greek writings that we find for the first time the place-name Arabia, formed on the analogy of Italia, etc. Herodotus and after him most other Greek and Latin writers extend the terms Arabia and Arab to the entire peninsula and all its inhabitants including the southern Arabians, and even the eastern desert of Egypt between the Nile and the Red Sea. The term at this time thus seems to cover all the desert areas of the Near and Middle East inhabited by semitic-speaking peoples. It is in Greek literature, too, that the term “Saracen” first becomes common. This word first appears in the ancient inscriptions and seems to be the name of a single desert tribe in the Sinai area. In Greek, Latin and Talmudic literature it is used of the nomads generally, and in Byzantium and the mediaeval West was later applied to all Muslim peoples.
The first Arabian use of the word Arab occurs in the ancient southern Arabian inscriptions, those relics of the flourishing civilisation set up in the Yemen by the southern branch of the Arab peoples and dating from the late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries. In these, Arab means Bedouin, often raider, and is applied to the nomadic as distinct from the sedentary population. The first occurrence in the north is in the early fourth-century A.D. Namara Epitaph, one of the oldest surviving records in the north-Arabian language which later became classical Arabic. This inscription, written in Arabic but in the Nabatean Aramaic script, records the death and achieve¬ments of Imru’l-Qais, “King of all the Arabs”, in terms which suggest that the sovereignty claimed did not extend far beyond the nomads of northern and central Arabia.
It is not until the rise of Islam early in the seventh century that we have any real information as to the use of the word in central and northern Arabia. For Muhammad and his contem¬poraries the Arabs were the Bedouin of the desert, and in the Qur’an the term is used exclusively in this sense and never of the townsfolk of Mecca, Medina and other cities. On the other hand, the language of these towns and of the Qur’an itself is described as Arabic. Here we find already the germ of the idea prevalent in later times that the purest form of Arabic is that of the Bedouin, who have preserved more faithfully than any others the original Arab way of life and speech.
The great waves of conquest that followed the death of Muhammad and the establishment of the Caliphate by his successors in the headship of the new Islamic community wrote the name Arab large across the three continents of Asia, Africa and Europe, and placed it in the heading of a vital though not lengthy chapter in the history of human thought and endeavour. The Arabic-speaking peoples of Arabia, nomad and settled folk alike, founded a vast empire stretching from central Asia across the Middle East and North Africa to the Atlantic. With Islam as their national religion and war-cry, and the new empire as their booty, the Arabs found themselves living among a vast variety of peoples differing in race, language and religion, among whom they formed a ruling minority of conquerors and masters. The ethnic distinctions between tribe and tribe and the social distinctions between townsfolk and desertfolk became for a while less significant than the difference between the masters of the new empire and the diverse peoples ' they had conquered. During this first period in Islamic history, when Islam was purely an Arab religion and the Caliphate an Arab kingdom, the term Arab came to be applied to those who spoke Arabic, were full members by descent of an Arab tribe and who, either in person or through their ancestors, had originated in Arabia. It served to mark them off from the mass of Persians, Syrians, Egyptians and others, whom the great conquests had brought under Arab rule, and as a con¬venient label for the new imperial people among others outside the “House of Islam”. The early classical Arab dictionaries give us two forms of the word Arab—“ ‘Arab” and “A‘rab” in Arabic—and tell us that the latter meant “Bedouin”, while the former was used in the wider sense described above. This distinction, if it is authentic—and there is much in the early dictionaries that has a purely lexicographical existence—must date from this period. There is no sign of it earlier. It does not appear to have survived for long. From the eighth century, the Caliphate was gradually transformed from an Arabic to an Islamic Empire in whiSh membership of the ruling caste was determined by faith rather than by origin. As increasing numbers of the conquered peoples were converted to Islam, the religion ceased to be the national or tribal cult of the Arab conquerors and acquired the universal character that it has retained ever since. The development of economic life and the cessation of the wars of conquest which had been the main productive activity of the Arabs produced a new governing class of administrators and traders, hetero¬geneous in race and language, which ousted the Arab military aristocracy created by the conquests. This change was reflected in the organisation and personnel of government. Arabic remained the sole official language and the main language of administration, commerce and culture. The rich and diverse civilisation of the Caliphate, produced by men of many nations and faiths, was Arabic in language and to a large extent also in tone. The use of the adjective Arab to describe the various facets of this civilisation has often been challenged on the grounds that the contribution to “Arab medicine”, “Arab philosophy”, etc. of those who were of Arab descent was relatively small. Even the use of the word Muslim is criticised, since so many of the architects of this culture were Christians and Jews, and the term “Islamic”, as possessing a cultural rather than a purely religious or national connotation, is sug¬gested as preferable. The authentically Arab characteristics of the civilisation of the Caliphate are, however, greater than the mere examination of the racial origins of its individual creators would suggest, and the use of the term is justified provided a clear distinction is drawn between its cultural and ethnic connotations. Another important point is that in the collective con-sciousness of the Arabs today it is the Arab civilisation of the Caliphate in this wider sense that is their common heritage and the formative influence in their cultural life.
Meanwhile the ethnic content of the word Arab itself was also changing. The spread of Islam among the conquered peoples was accompanied by the spread of Arabic. This process was accelerated by the settlement of numbers of Arabians in the provinces, and from the tenth century onwards by the arrival of a new ruling race, the Turks, in common subjection to whom the distinction between the descendants of the Arab conquerors and the Arabised natives ceased to be significant. In almost all the provinces west of Persia the old native languages died out and Arabic became the chief spoken language. From late ‘Abbasid times onwards the word Arab reverts to its earlier meaning of Bedouin or nomad, becoming in effect a social rather than an ethnic term. In many of the Western chronicles of the Crusades it is used only for Bedouin, while the mass of the Muslim population of the Near East are called Saracens. It is certainly in this sense that in the sixteenth century Tasso speaks of
“altri Arabi poi, che di soggiorno, certo non sono stabili abitanti; ”(Gerusalemme Liberata, XVII 21)
The fourteenth-century Arabic historian Ibn Khaldun, himself a townsman of Arab descent, uses the word commonly in this sense.
The main criterion of classification in these times was religious. The various minority faiths were organised as religio- political communities, each under its own leaders and laws. The majority belonged to the Ummat al-Islam, the community or nation of Islam. Its members thought of themselves primarily as Muslims. When further classification was necessary, it might be territorial—Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi—or social— townsman, peasant, nomad. It is to this last that the term Arab belongs. So little had it retained of its ethnic meaning that we even find it applied at times to non-Arab nomads of Kurdish or Turkoman extraction. When the dominant social class within the Ummat al-Islam was mainly Turkish—as was the case for many centuries in the Near East—we sometimes find the term “Sons or Children of the Arabs” (Abna’ al-‘Arab or Awlad al-AraV) applied to the Arabic-speaking townspeople and peasantry to distinguish them from the Turkish ruling class on the one hand and the nomads or Arabs proper on the other.
In colloquial Arabic this situation has remained substantially unchange d to the present day, though others have replaced the Turks as the dominant class. But among the intellectuals of the Arabic-speaking countries a change of far-reaching signifi¬cance has taken place. The rapid growth of European activity and influence in these lands brought with it the European idea of the nation as a group of people with a common homeland, language, character, and political aspiration. Since 1517 the Ottoman Empire had ruled most of the Arabic-speaking peoples of the Near and Middle East. The impact of the national idea on a people in the throes of the violent social change brought about by the entry of Western Imperialism produced the first beginnings of an Arab revival and an Arab national movement aiming at the creation of an independent state or states. The movement began in Syria and its first leaders seem to have thought in terms only of that country. Soon it spread to Iraq and in later years developed closer relations with the local nationalist movements in Egypt and even in the Arabicspeaking countries of North Africa.
For the theorists of Arab nationalism the Arabs are a nation in the European sense, including all those within certain boundaries who speak Arabic and cherish the memory of bygone Arab glory. There are different views as to where these boundaries are. For some they include only the Arabic-speaking countries of south-west Asia. Others add Egypt—though here there was a conflict of opinion with the many Egyptians who conceived of their nationalism in purely Egyptian terms. Many include the entire Arabic-speaking world from Morocco to the borders of Persia and Turkey. The social barrier between sedentary and nomad has ceased to be significant from this point of view, despite its survival in the colloquial use of “Arab” for Bedouin. The religious barrier in a society long dominated by a theocratic faith is less easily set aside. Though few of the spokesmen of the movement will admit it, many Arabs still exclude those who, though they speak Arabic, reject the Arabian faith and therefore much of the civilisation that it fostered.
To sum up then: the term Arab is first encountered in the ninth century B.c., describing the Bedouin of the north Arabian steppe. It remained in use for several centuries in this sense among the settled peoples of the neighbouring countries. In Greek and Roman usage it was for the first time extended to cover the whole peninsula, including the settled people of the oases and the relatively advanced civilisation of the south¬west. In Arabia itself it seems still to have been limited to the nomads although the common language of sedentary and nomad Arabians was called Arabic. After the Islamic conquests and during the period of the Arab Empire it marked off the Arabic-speaking ruling class of conquerors of Arabian origin from the mass of the conquered peoples. As the Arab kingdom was transformed into a cosmopolitan Islamic Empire it came to denote—in external rather than in internal usage—the variegated culture of that Empire, produced by men of many races and religions, but in the Arabic language and conditioned by Arab taste and tradition. With the fusion of the Arab con¬querors and the Arabised conquered and their common sub¬jection to other ruling elements it gradually lost its national content and became a social term applied only to the nomads who had preserved more faithfully than any others the original Arabian way of life and language. The Arabic-speaking peoples of the settled countries were usually classed simply as Muslims, sometimes as “sons or children of the Arabs”, to distinguish them from Muslims using other languages. While all these different usages have survived in certain contexts to the present day, a new one born of the impact of the West has in the last fifty years become increasingly important. It is that which regards the Arabic-speaking peoples as a nation or group of sister nations in the European sense, united by a common territory, language and culture and a common aspiration to political independence.
It is a much easier task to examine the extent of Arabism in space at the present time. The Arabic-speaking countries fall into three groups, south-west Asia, Egypt, and North Africa. The largest Arab land in the first group is the Arabianpeninsula itself, most of it occupied by the patriarchal kingdom of Sa'udi Arabia, still, despite the intrusion of the oil industry, largely pastoral and nomadic. A republican coup against the monarchy in the Yemen, in 1962, began a civil war which still continues. In 1967 the Aden colony and protectorates became independent as ‘The People’s Republic of South Yemen’, and in 1968 the first steps were taken which led to the termination of the British presence in the Persian Gulf. To the north lie the lands of the Fertile Crescent, until 1918 provinces of the Ottoman Empire, now the states of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. It is in these countries that the process of Arabisation went farthest, that the sentiment of Arab identity is strongest. Adjoining Arab Asia, in the N.E. corner of Africa, lies Egypt, the most populous, most developed and most homogeneous of the Arabic-speaking states, with the longest tradition of political nationalism and of separate political existence in modern times. In February 1958 Egypt was joined by Syria in a United Arab Republic, from which Syria with¬drew in 1961.
South of Egypt, on the African continent, lies the predominantly Arabic-speaking Republic of the Sudan, which attained its independence in 1956. To the West, the former Italian colony of Libya became an independent monarchy in December 1951; Tunisia and Morocco were both recognised as independent in 1956, and Algeria, after a long and bitter struggle, in 1962. In most of these countries the population is mixed, mainly Arabic-speaking, but with Berber-speaking minorities, especially in Morocco. Some Europeans still remain. These countries have been most affected by European economic, cultural and political penetration, least by the Arab revival. During recent years the nationalist movements in North Africa have become increasingly vigorous. While their objectives are still mainly local, the spread of Arabic cultural influences from the Near East, especially in Tunisia, is producing a greater feeling of kinship with the eastern Arabs. Besides these countries, there are Arab communities living in the former British and French dependencies in Africa, among predominantly negro populations, and small Arab minorities in Israel, Turkey and Persia. The total number of Arabicspeaking people in Asia and Africa is usually estimated at about a hundred million, of whom over thirty-five million live in Egypt and over thirty-five million in North Africa.
All these countries have much in common. All of them are on the border of the desert and the sown, and have confronted from the earliest times until today the ever-present problem of the encroaching nomad. Two of the most important, Egypt and Iraq, are the irrigated valleys of great rivers, highways of commerce and seats of centralised states from most ancient times. Almost all of them are peasant countries, with basically the same social order and governing classes—though the outer forms and even the social realities are changing as the impact of the modern world affects them separately, at different times, in different ways, at different tempos. All but Arabia itself were won for Arabism and Islam by the great conquests and all have inherited the same great legacy of language, religion and civilisation. But the language has many local differences, and so too have religion, culture and social tradition. Long separation and vast distances helped the Arabs, in fusion with different native cultures, to produce vigorous local variants of the common tradition, sometimes, as in Egypt, with an age-old sense of local national identity. Alongside the conquered peoples, here and there, were those who refused either the conqueror’s language or religion or both, surviving among the Arabs as Kurds or Berbers in Iraq or North Africa, Maronites or Copts in Lebanon or Egypt. New sects arose in Islam itself, sometimes through the action of pre-existing cults, leaving Shi'ites and Yazidis in Iraq, Druzes in Syria and Lebanon, Zaidis and Isma'ilis in the Yemen. The modern age, by subjecting the Arab lands to greatly differing processes, has brought new factors of disunity, deriving from varying social levels as well as from regional and dynastic interests. But modern develop¬ments are also strengthening the factors of unity—the rapid growth of modern communications, bringing the different parts of the Arab world into closer and quicker contact with one another than ever before, the spread of education and literacy, giving greater scope to the unifying power of a common written language and memory; and, most obvious, the new solidarity in opposition to the West and in reaction against Western influence.
One last problem remains to be discussed in these introductory remarks. The European writer on Islamic history labours under a special disability. Writing in a Western language, he necessarily uses Western terms. But these terms are based on Western categories of thought and analysis, themselves deriving in the main from Western history. Their application to the conditions of another society formed by different influences and living in different ways of life can at best be only an analogy and may be dangerously misleading. To take an example: such pairs of words as Church and State, spiritual and tem¬poral, ecclesiastical and lay, had no real equivalents in Arabic until modern times, when they were created to translate modern ideas; for the dichotomy which they express was unknown to mediaeval Muslim society and unarticulated in the mediaeval Muslim mind. The community of Islam was Church and State in one, with the two indistinguishably interwoven; its titular head, the Caliph, was at once a secular and a religious chief. Again, the term “feudalism”, strictly speaking, refers to the form of society which existed in western Europe between the break-up of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the modern order. Its use for other areas and other periods must inevitably, unless it is carefully defined in its new context, create the impression that the type of society thus described is identical with or at least similar to west-European feudalism. But no two societies are exactly the same, and though the social order in Islam at certain periods may show quite a number of important resemblances to west-European feudalism, this can never justify the total identification which is implicit in the unrestricted use of the term. Such words as “religion”, “state”, “sovereignty”, “democracy”, mean very different things in the Islamic context and indeed vary in meaning from one part of Europe to another. The use of such words, however, is inevitable in writing in English and for that matter in writing in the modern languages of the Orient, influenced for close on a century by Western modes of thought and classification. In the following pages they are to be understood at all times in their Islamic context and should not be taken as implying any greater degree of resemblance to corresponding Western institutions than is specifically stated.
I
Arabia Before Islam
The burden of the desert of the sea. As whirlwinds in the south pass through; so it cometh from the desert, from a terrible land. (Isaiah xxi, i)
The Arabian peninsula forms a vast rectangle of some one-and- a-quarter million square miles area. It is bordered in the north by the chain of territories commonly known as the Fertile Crescent—in Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine—and their desert borderlands; in the east and south by the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean; in the west by the Red Sea. The south-western districts of the Yemen consist of well-watered mountain country which from an early date permitted the rise of agriculture and the development of flourishing and relatively advanced sedentary civilisations. The remainder of the country consists of waterless steppes and deserts broken only by an occasional oasis and crossed by a few caravan and trade routes. The population was mainly pastoral and nomadic, living by its flocks and by raiding the peoples of the oases and of the cultivated neighbouring provinces.
The deserts of Arabia are of various kinds: the most important according to the Arab classification are the Nufud, a sea of enormous shifting sand-dunes forming a landscape of constantly changing aspect; the Hamad, rather more solid ground in the areas nearer to Syria and Iraq; the steppe country, where the ground is more compact and where occasional rainfall produces a sudden and transient vegetation; and finally the vast and impenetrable sand desert of the south-east. Between these zones communications are limited and difficult, depending mainly on wadis, so that the inhabitants of the different parts of Arabia had little contact with one another.
The centre and north of the peninsula are traditionally divided by the Arabs into three zones. The first of these is the ...
Bernard Lewis
The Arabs in History
Hutchinson
Hutchinson & Co (Publishers) Ltd The Arabs in History Bernard Lewis
Bernard Levis Cleveland E. Dodge Profesor of Near Eastern Studies in the University of Princeton, New Jersey
Hutchinson of London
Hutchinson & Co (Publishers) Ltd 3 Fitzroy Square, London Wi
London Melbourne Sydney Auckland Wellington Johannesburg Cape Town and agencies throughout the world
The paperback edition of this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser
Printed in Great Britain by litho by The Anchor Press Ltd and bound by Wm Brendon & Son Ltd both of Tiptree, Essex ISBN 0 09 105550 4 (cased) ISBN 0 09 105551 2 (paper)
the_arabs_in_history_b_levis.pdf
Visionneuse n'a pas trouvé le document
