'History of the imâms and seyyids of 'Omân by Salîl-ibn-Razîk, from A.D. 661-1856; translated from the original Arabic, and edited with notes, appendices, and an introduction, continuing the history down to 1870, by George Percy Badger, F.R.G.S., late chaplain in the Presidency of Bombay.' [‎24] (57/612)

XXIV INTRODUCTION
The immediate cause of dissension between the two par
ties arose out of certain occurrences at Lawa, a small town
near the coast, about fifteen miles north of Sohar. On
Nasir's accession the fort there was held by a friendly ally,
who was subsequently murdered, and the place fell into the
hands of two brothers of the el-Hilaly tribe, 1 one of whom
joined a number of other malcontent chiefs who had souo-ht
O
refuge with the Portuguese at Sohar. The latter readily
espoused their cause and abetted them in their opposition to
the Imam, supplying them with arms and ammunition to
carry on hostilities against him. Despite this cooperation,
however, the rebels were obliged to surrender Lawa, and
emboldened by success the Imfim Nasir forthwith dispatched
a large army to attack the Christians at Maskat and el-
Matrah. The conflict which ensued resulted in the cession to
the ''Omanis of several outposts at the former place, as also
all the buildings and land which the Portuguese held at Sohar,
with the exception of the castle j and, further, they agreed
to pay tribute to the Imam for their continued occupation
of Maskat.
N.isir-bin-Murshid's next expedition was directed against
Julfar, the modern Ras-el-Khaimah, on the western coast,
then held jointly by the "Persians" of Hormuz and the
Portuguese. After capturing that place he ordered a fort to
be built on the seashore near Sohar, in order to keep a
check upon the manoeuvres of the Portuguese and the dis
affected native chiefs who were harboured there. An abor
tive attack was made at the same time on the Sohar castle, 2
1 Owing evidently to mistranscription, there is great confusion in the
names of the principal persons concerned in these occurrences at I^awa,
as given at pp. 63, 64. Muhammad-bin-Jufair, in the thirteenth line
of the former page, is called " el-Jabry," whereas being brother to Seif-
bin-Muhammad, el-IIilaly, he also must have belonged to the same tribe.
Again, in the fifth line of p. 64, the same Seif-bin-Muhanunad is desig
nated u el-Ilin&y," instead of u el-IIilaly." These inaccuracies escaped
my notice at the time.
Ihe castle of Soh&r occupies a small rising ground within the city;