HOSPITALITY
The
guest
had
a
right
to
expect
certain
attentions
(Ll£
7"ff).
The
practice
of
hospitality
distinguished
those
on
the
right
from
those
on
the
left
hand
(Mt
25";
of.
10*",
Jn
1321).
It
Is
commended
by
precept
(Ro
1213-
20,
1
Ti
32
etc.),
and
also
by
example
(He
13^).
HospitaUty
was
highly
esteemed
amongst
other
ancient
peoples.
In
Egypt
its
practice
was
thought
to
favour
the
soul
in
the
future
life.
By
kindness
to
strangers
the
Greelss
secured
the
approval
of
Zeus-Xenios,
their
protector.
For
the
Romans
hospitaUty
was
a
sacred
obUgation.
In
its
simplest
eispect,
hospitality
is
the
reception
of
the
wayfarer
as
an
honoured
guest,
providing
shelter
and
food.
In
the
ancient,
as
indeed
for
the
most
part
in
the
modern,
Orient,
men
journey
only
under
necessity.
Travel
for
purposes
of
pleasure
and
education
is
practi-cally
unknown.
Save
in
cities,
therefore,
and
in
trading
centres
along
the
great
highways,
there
was
Uttle
caU
for
places
of
pubUc
entertainment.
Villages
probably
always
contained
what
is
called
the
medafeh
—
properly
madyafah
—
a
chamber
reserved
for
guests,
whose
entertainment
is
a
charge
upon
the
whole
community.
From
personal
experience
the
present
writer
knows
how
solicitous
the
humblest
villagers
are
tor
the
comfort
and
well-being
of
their
guests.
If
the
chief
man
in
a
village
be
weU
off,
he
greatly
adds
to
his
prestige
by
a
liberal
display
of
hospitahty.
In
the
desert,
every
tent,
however
poor
its
owner,
offers
welcome
to
the
traveller.
In
the
master's
absence
the
women
receive
the
guests,
and
according
to
their
means
do
the
honours
of
the
'house
of
hair.'
It
is
the
master's
pride
to
be
known
as
a
generous
man;
any
lack
of
civility
or
of
kindness
to
a
guest
meets
severe
reprobation.
In
the
guest's
presence
he
calls
neither
his
tent,
nor
anything
it
contains,
his
own.
During
his
sojourn
the
visitor
is
owner.
The
women
bake
bread;
the
master
slays
a
'sacrifice,'
usually
a
lamb,
kid,
or
sheep,
which
is
forthwith
dressed,
cooked,
and
served
with
the
bread.
The
proud
son
of
the
wilds
has
high
Ideas
of
his
own
dignity
and
honour;
but
he
himself
waits
upon
his
guest,
seeking
to
gratify
with
alacrity
his
every
wish.
If
his
visitors
are
of
superior
rank
he
stands
by
them
(Gn
188),
and
in
any
case
sits
down
only
if
they
invite
him.
The
safety
and
comfort
of
the
guests
are
the
first
consideration;
many
place
them
before
even
the
honour
of
wife
and
daughter
(Gu
19',
Jg
19»;
cf.
Lane,
Mod.
Egyp.
297).
If
a
guest
arrives
after
sunset
he
is
entitled
only
to
shelter,
as
the
host
might
then
be
unable
to
prepare
a
meal
creditable
to
himself.
If
food
is
offered,
it
is
of
the
host's
goodwill
(Lk
ll'').
The
guest,
careful
of
the
host's
honour,
will
indicate
that
more
than
he
requires
has
been
provided
by
leaving
a
portion
in
the
dish.
The
open
hand,
as
the
token
of
a
liberal
heart,
wins
the
respect
and
esteem
of
the
Arabs.
Leadership
does
not
of
necessity
descend
from
father
to
son.
Right
to
the
position
must
be
vindicated
by
wisdom,
courage,
dignity,
and
not
least
by
generous
hospitality.
For
the
niggard
in
this
regard
there
is
nothing
but
contempt.
It
is
a
coveted
distinction
to
be
known
as
a
'coffee
sheik,'
one
who
without
stint
supplies
his
visitors
with
the
fragrant
beverage.
The
Arabs
are
sometimes
charged
with
want
of
gratitude;
justly,
as
it
seems
from
our
point
of
view.
But
what
seems
ingratitude
to
us
may
be
due
simply
to
the
Influence
of
immemorial
custom,
in
a
land
where
the
necessities
of
life
are
never
sold,
but
held
as
common
good,
of
which
the
traveller
may
of
right
claim
a
share.
The
'
right
of
a
guest
'
may
be
taken.
If
not
freely
offered.
The
man
who
refuses
covers
himself
with
perpetual
shame.
The
guest
enjoys
only
his
right;
therefore
no
thanks
mingle
with
his
farewell.
The
right,
however,
is
Umited.
'
Whoever,'
says
the
Prophet,
'
beUeves
in
God
and
the
day
of
resurrection
must
respect
his
guest;
and
the
time
of
being
kind
to
him
Is
one
day
and
one
night;
and
the
period
of
entertaining
him
is
three
days;
and
if
after
that
he
HOSPITALITY
does
It
longer,
he
benefits
him
more:
but
it
is
not
right
for
the
guest
to
stay
in
the
house
of
his
host
so
long
as
to
incommode
him'
(Lane,
Arabian
Society
in
the
Middle
Ages,
143).
After
three
days,
or,
some
say,
three
days
and
four
hours,
the
host
may
ask
If
he
proposes
to
honour
him
by
a
longer
stay.
The
guest
may
wish
to
reach
some
point
under
protection
of
the
tribe.
If
so,
he
is
welcome
to
stay;
only,
the
host
may
give
him
work
to
do.
To
remain
while
refusing
to
do
this
is
highly
dishonourable.
But
the
guest
may
go
to
another
tent
at
the
expiry
of
every
third
day,
thus
renewing
his
'right,'
and
sojourn
with
the
tribe
as
long
as
is
necessary.
HospitaUty
involves
protection
as
well
as
maintenance.
'
It
is
a
principle
alike
in
old
and
new
Arabia
that
the
guest
Is
inviolable'
(W.
R.
Smith,
Kinshij^,
48).
That
this
provision
applies
to
enemies
as
well
as
to
friends
shows
the
magnanimity
of
the
desert
law.
Every
stranger
met
in
the
open
is
assumed
to
be
an
enemy:
he
will
owe
his
safety
either
to
his
own
prowess
or
to
fear
that
his
tribe
will
exact
vengeance
if
he
is
injured.
But
the
stranger
who
enters
the
tent
is
daif
Vllah,
the
guest
whom
God
has
sent,
to
be
well
entreated
for
Hissake.
In
anenemy's
country
one's
perils
are
over
when
he
reaches
a
tent,
and
touches
even
a
tent
peg.
A
father's
murderer
may
find
sure
asylum
even
in
the
tent
of
his
victim's
son.
When
he
has
eaten
of
the
host's
bread,
the
two
are
at
once
bound
as
brothers
for
mutual
help
and
protection.
It
is
said
that
'
there
is
salt
between
them.'
Not
that
Uteral
salt
is
required.
This
Is
a
term
covering
milk,
and
indeed
food
of
any
kind.
A
draught
of
water
taken
by
stealth,
or
even
against
his
will,
from
a
man's
dish,
serves
the
purpose.
When
protection
is
secured
from
one,
the
whole
tribe
is
bound
by
it
(W.
B.
Smith,
US'
76).
To
understand
this
we
must
remember
(1)
that
in
Arabia
all
recogniuftnof
Mutual
rights
andduties
res
tsuponkinship.
Those
outside
the
kin
may
be
dealt
with
according
to
each
man's
inclination
and
ability.
(2)
Kinship
is
not
exclusively
a
matter
of
birth.
It
may
be
acquired.
When
men
eat
and
drink
together,
they
renew
their
blood
from
the
one
source,
and
to
that
extent
are
partakers
in
the
same
blood.
The
stranger
eating
with
a
clansman
becomes
'
kinsman
'
to
all
the
members
of
the
clan,
as
regards
'the
fundamental
rights
and
duties
that
turn
on
the
sanctity
of
kindred
blood
'
(Wellhausen,
Besle
Arab.
Held.
119f.;
W.
R.
Smith,
BS^
273
n.).
This
sanctity
may
be
traced
to
the
ancient
belief
that
the
clan
god
shared
it^
life,
and
when
an
animal
was
slain
for
food
took
part
in
the
common
meal.
The
clan's
friends
were
therefore
the
god'sfriends,
whom
to
injure
was
to
outrage
the
deity.
That
the
slaughter
of
the
victim
waa
a
religious
act
involving
the
whole
kin
is
borne
out
(a)
by
the
fact
that
when
an
animal
is
slain
all
have
an
undisputed
right
to
come
to
the
feast;
(6)
by
the
name
dhablhah,'
sacri-fice,'
still
applied
to
it.
The
present
writer
was
once
enter-tained
in
the
camp
of
a
ratner
wild
and
unkempt
tribe.
His
attendants
supped
with
the
crowd.
Fearing
this
might
not
be
agreeable
to
a
European^
the
chief's
son,
who
pre-sided
in
his
father's
absence,
with
innate
Arab
courtesy,
asked
him
to
sup
with
him
in
the
sheilc's
tent.
Bringing
in
a
portion
of
the
flesh,
the
youth
repeatedly
remarked,
as
if
for
the
stranger's
re-assurance,
edh-dhablhah
wdhideh,
'the
slaughtering
—
sacrifice
—
is
one';
i.e.
the
tribesmen
and
he
ate
from
the
same
victim.
The
bond
thus
formed
was
temporary,
holding
good
for
36
hours
after
parting.
By
frequent
renewal,
how-ever,
it
might
become
permanent.
'
There
was
a
sworn
aUiance
between
the
Libyan
and
the
Mostallc:
they
were
wont
to
eat
and
drink
together'
(RS'
270
f.).
A
man
may
declare
himself
the
dakhU
—
from
dakhala,
'
to
enter,'
i.e.
to
claim
protection
—
of
a
powerful
man,
and
thus
pass
under
shelter
of
his
name
even
before
his
tent
Is
reached.
Whoever
should
injure
him
then
would
have
to
reckon
with
the
man
whose
name
he
had
invoked.
The
rights
of
sanctuary
associated
with
temples,
and
until
recently
with
certain
churches,
originated
in
an
appeal
to
the
hospitality
of
the
local
deity.
The
refugee's
safety
depended
on
the
respect
paid
to
the
god.
Joab
would
have
been
safe
had
he
not
outlawed
himself
In
this
regard
(1
K
2'>«).
Jael's
