Muru’ah - Islamic History

Last updated: April 30th, 2025 at 12:35 pm · Est. Reading Time: 3 minutes

Late pre-Islamic Arabs had a set of ethical behaviour that was valued as noble by the society at large and was called muru’ah (murūʾah مروءه).

Muru’ah was the result of a shared vision of an ideal human, a shared attitude toward the role of the individual within society, and a shared apprehension of the human condition.¹

Muru’ah, which literally means manliness, esteemed courage in war and hospitality in peace, respect for women and honour, and protection of the weak and the orphan. It also included other virtues such as independence of spirit and love of liberty. The two most cardinal virtues among muru’ah were bravery and hospitality.²

In addition to singing praises for bravery in war, pre-Islamic poets never miss any opportunity to boast their generosity. Pre-Islamic poet Hatim Tai (Ḥātim al-Ṭāʾī, حا طَم الطاءى) who later became a legend for his generosity, says:

When you have prepared the meal, entreat to partake thereof a guest
I am not one to eat, like a churl, alone

Some traveller through the night, or protégé, for in truth
I fear the reproachful talk of me after I am gone.³

Look at verses of another pre-Islamic poet ‘Amr ibn Qami’ah:

Ah many the good companion, noble of ancestry, liberal, have I given
to drink before dawn broke, the morning draught in a cup of wine bought at a high price.

He is careful to be beforehand with the waking in the morning of the railing women
lest they proclaim that he has become a wastrel.

Then he said to us ‘Ho! Hast thou any roast meat? – hinting indirectly
and he did not hide his request because he could not explain himself.

And I tarried not, but sent my servant at once to seek
the best of my fat young she-camels with a large hump.

And she strove to rise, but not to be led along
and I hamstrung her with my sharp-cutting Mashrafite sword.

And all the day long my fellow lay in luxury, with servants waiting upon him
and at night he enjoyed a noble feast, to which all neighbours came.⁴

The judge of sticking to muru’ah was public opinion. It was so important to Arabs that, for example, Samaw’al bin Adiya (Samaw’al bin ʾĀdiyā’ سَموأل بِن عادياء) permitted a son of his to be killed by a besieging force rather than surrender some weapons entrusted to his safe-keeping by Imru’ al-Qays.⁵ Similarly, Ibn al-Dughannah, the chief of Qara (Qārah قارَه) tribe who had given protection to Abu Bakr during Meccan phase of Islam, is quoted to have said ‘I do not wish the Arabs to hear that I violated an undertaking that I had granted to any man’.⁶ He was afraid of public opinion in case he did not fulfil expectations of muru’ah.

Muru’ah impelled people to fulfill their social duties, including duty towards tribe. Neglecting muru’ah could result in social isolation of an individual. No body dared it. Mur’ah was binding on whole population and, hence, was not consciously amenable. A tribal shaykh did not have a police force at his disposal to manage the tribe. It was adherence with muru’ah coupled with adherence to sunnah on the part of the Arabs, which helped the tribal shaykh to administer his tribe.

Footnotes

Gustave E. Grunebaum, “The nature of Arab Unity before Islam,” Arabica 10, no. 1 (1963) 16.
Irfan Shahīd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century Vol. II part II, (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 2002), 303.
Hatim al-Ta’i, Der Dīwān des Arabischen Dichters Hatim Tej, ed. and trans. Friedrich Schulthess, (Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1897), 62.
‘Amr ibn Qami’ah, The Peoms of ‘Amr son of Qami’ah, ed. and trans. Charles Lyall, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1919), 52.
For the story see: Abu Faraj al-Isbahani, Kitab al-Aghani (Cairo: 1964), 24: 97 – 128. Also see the comments: Montgomery W. Watt. Muhammad at Mecca, (London: Oxford University Press, 1953; Repr. 1965), 21.
Ma‘mar ibn Rāshid. The Expeditions, ed. Joseph E. Lowry, trans. Sean W. Anthony (New York: New York University Press, 2015), 73.

Further Reading

Footnotes