Nasr Al-Madhkur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (April 2008)

This article is part of the series on:

History of Bahrain
Ancient Bahrain
Dilmun
Tylos and Mishmahig
Awal
Historical region
Islam in Bahrain
Al-Ala'a Al-Hadrami
Qarmatians
Portuguese occupation
Muqrin ibn Zamil
Antonio Correia
Safavid hegemony (1602-1717)
1717 Oman invasion of Bahrain
Al Khalifa and
the British Protectorate
1783 Al Khalifa invasion of Bahrain
Perpetual Truce of Peace
and Friendship (1861)
First Oil Well (1932)
20th Century Bahrain
March 1965 Intifada
1981 coup d'état attempt
Uprising 1994-2000
2000s in Bahrain
Forum for the Future
Topical
Military history of Bahrain
Timeline of Bahrain history

Sheikh Nasr Al-Madhkur was the eighteenth century local governor of what was described by a contemporary account as an "independent state"[1] in Bushire and Bahrain[2], who ruled Bahrain in the name of the shah of Persia.[3] The account by German geographer Carsten Niebuhr who visited the region at the time describes Sheikh Nasr as "the sole Monarch of the isle of Bahrain”[4]. He lost Bahrain in the 1783 Al Khalifa invasion of Bahrain.

The Al-Madhkur family were Arabs from Oman who had settled in Bushire[5], and led the Abu Shahr Arabs on the Persian Gulf littoral[6]. According to Carsten Niebuhr, the eighteenth century German geographer, the Abu Shahr Arabs under the Al Madhkurs were one of three major Arab forces ruling parts of southern Persia in the 1760s. Although the Abu Shahr Arabs lived on the Persian Gulf littoral they should not be confused with Huwalas, and did not share their sense of identity, at least according to Niebuhr[7]. Niebuhr visited Abu Shahr in 1765 and when he wrote of independent Arab states he included Abu Shahr[8]. However it seems likely that under the system of suzerainty, the Al-Madhkurs held at least nominal allegiance to governors in southern Persia.

In 1753, from their base in Bushire, the Al Madhkurs took over Bahrain[9], the position of which had been badly undermined by the chaos following successive invasions. Sheikh Nasr seems to have been using Bahrain as a place to send those suffering from leprosy and venereal disease.[10]

Bahrain offered great potential wealth because of the extensive pearls found in its waters, however, the Zubarah-based trading clan, the Al-Khalifas, had come to dominate the pearling trade gaining a virtual monopoly position in pearling around Bahrain and Qatar, which provoked Sheikh Nasr Al Madhkur’s animosity[11]. The prosperity of Zubarah, which is now in modern Qatar, had also brought it to the attention of the two main powers at the time, Persia and the Oman[12], which were presumably sympathetic to Sheikh Nasr’s ambitions.

In 1782, Sheikh Nasr launched a military assault on Zubarah after an Al-Khalifa sheikh was killed on the Bahraini island of Sitra. Sheikh Nasr’s forces quickly surrounded the city and placed it under siege, but they were unable to capture it. As the siege dragged on into 1783 the Al Khalifas sought help from other members of their Utoob tribe, as well as Huwala tribes. Among their number was the Al Jalahma led by Rahmah bin Jabir al-Jalahmah, considered one of the most vivid characters in the Persian Gulf’s history[13]. In the battle that followed, Sheikh Nasr’s forces were shattered by the combined armies and the siege was broken. (Sheikh Nasr’s own sword was captured by Salama Bin Saif Al Bin Ali.) With this defeat the Al-Khalifas inherited Sheikh Nasr’s Bahrain possession, although they were to lose it soon afterwards to the Omanis.

The war that broke out was between Shaikh Nasr and Al Bin Ali and not Al Khalifa is undoubtful. Shaikh Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa (Current King of Bahrain) wrote in one of his books entitled "First Light" that the Sword of Nasr Al-Madhkur fell into the hands of Salama Bin Saif Al Bin Ali. If the war was between the Al Khalifa and Nasr Al-Madhkur why would the sword fall in to the hands of a person from the the Al Bin Ali rather than the Al Khalifa ? The Al Bin Ali were a politically important group that moved backwards and forwards between Qatar and Bahrain, they were the original dominant group of Zubara area [14].The Al Bin Ali were the Arabs that were occupying Zubarah when the Great Grandfather of the Al Khalifa family ( Mohamed Bin Khalifa) came to it from Kuwait. [15]. This proves that it is not Mohamed Bin Khalifa ( Great Grandfather of the Al Khalifa family ) who has established Zubarah since the Al Bin Ali have settled in Zubarah and established it before his arrival by decades. When Mohamed Bin Khalifa and his family arrived to Zubarah in the year 1766 or 1768 as some sources differ in the year of his arrival to Zubarah, it was already established as a town and a strategic pearl trading Center as well as one of the most important ports in the Persian Gulf. These statements proves that the Al Bin Ali were the Dominant tribe in Zubarah and they are the ones who established it in the first place. It is known as a fact that the Al Khalifa in the year 1782 during the war between Al Bin Ali and Nasr Al-Madhkur were only 4 persons as in men who are capable of handling big issues like fighting in war, etc. They were Ahmed, Muqrin, Ali, and Ebrahim who were the sons of Mohamed Bin Khalifa the great grand father of the Al Khalifa family. They had a brother called Khalifa which died in Haj before the war of Zubarah with Nasr Al-Madhkur. What proves this is the Family Tree of Al Khalifa which clearly shows that the sons of Mohamed Bin Khalifa the great grand father of the Al Khalifa were 5 with one who got passed away in Haj. So can 4 persons fight an army ofNasr Al-Madhkur ? can 4 persons invade bahrain? There is something called Logic and evidence. The Sword of Nasr Al Madhkoor can be seen today at the King Abdulaziz museum in Riyadh when one of the Shaikh's of Al binali called Rashid Bin fAdhel inherited the sword from the ancestors of Shaikh Salama Bin Saif Al Bin Ali , Shaikh Rashid then gave the sword as a gift to King Abdulaziz Al Saud.

The Problem is that many historians depended on one or two historians that wrote false information based on the information that was told to them and not redearched by them!

!

[edit] References

  1. ^ Carsten Niebuhr, Travels Through Arabia and Other Countries in the East, R Morison & Son, 1792 (1801 imprint) p145
  2. ^ Derek Hopwood, The Arabian Peninsular, George Allen and Unwin, 1972, p40
  3. ^ Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East by Reeva S. Simon, Philip Mattar, Richard W. Bulliet, p160
  4. ^ Carsten Niebuhr, Travels Through Arabia and Other Countries in the East, R Morison & Son, 1792 (1801 imprint) p153
  5. ^ Derek Hopwood, The Arabian Peninsular, George Allen and Unwin, 1972, p40
  6. ^ Ahmad Mustafa Abu Hakima, History of Eastern Arabia 1750-1800, Khayat, 1960, p78
  7. ^ Ahmad Mustafa Abu Hakima, History of Eastern Arabia 1750-1800, Khayat, 1960, p79
  8. ^ Ahmad Mustafa Abu Hakima, History of Eastern Arabia 1750-1800, Khayat, 1960, p79
  9. ^ Ahmad Mustafa Abu Hakima, History of Eastern Arabia 1750-1800, Khayat, 1960, p78
  10. ^ Carsten Niebuhr, Travels Through Arabia and Other Countries in the East, R Morison & Son, 1792 (1801 imprint) p278
  11. ^ Yitzhak Nakash, Reaching for Power: The Shi'a in the Modern Arab World, Princeton 2007
  12. ^ Jill Crystal, Oil and Politics in the Gulf: Rulers and Merchants in Kuwait and Qatar, Cambridge University Press 1995 p26
  13. ^ Charles Belgrave, The Pirate Coast, G. Bell & Sons, 1966 p122
  14. ^ Arabia's Frontiers: The Story of Britain's Boundary Drawing in the Desert, John C. Wilkinson, p44
  15. ^ Around the Coast, Amin Reehani, p297