The Najran Pact,

Mobaahelah (Mubahilah)

Part 3

At this point, it is absolutely necessary to know the truth regarding the two persons mentioned in the quotation from the ancient Syriac Book of Himyarites: 1) a refugee from Najran by the name of Umayya, and 2) Abraha al-Ashram, the Christian viceroy of the Negus of Abyssinia.

In order to find out the truth regarding Umayya and his descendants, we also need to get to know Hashim and his descendants:

In about 400 A.D., a man called Qusay, was born in the tribe of Quraysh. He won great honor and fame for his tribe by his wisdom. He repaired the Kaaba … He ordered the Arabs to build their houses around it … He obtained supreme power at Mecca … Qusay died in 480 A.D., and his son, Abd Manaf, took charge of his duties. He too distinguished himself by his ability … He was succeeded by his son Hashim. It was this Hashim who gave his name to the clan which became famous in history as Banu Hashim. Hashim was an extraordinary man. It was he who made the Quraysh merchants and merchant princes. He was the first man who instituted the two caravan journeys of Quraysh, summer and winter … Hashim had a son called Abdul Muttalib. In due course, Abdul Muttalib the grandfather of Mohammed was to succeed his father as the chief of the clan of Hashim … the family of Hashemites, from whence Mohammed sprang, was the most respectable and sacred in the eyes of their country. Mohammed's descent from Ismael [ the Prophet Ismael (Ishmael), the first son of the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham)] was a national privilege … Mohammed sprang from the tribe of Koreish and the family of Hashim, the most illustrious of the Arabs, the princes of Mecca, and the hereditary guardians of the Kaaba. (From: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon, as cited in Restatement of History of Islam and Muslims)

Hashim had a younger brother called Al-Muttalib, the son of Abd Manaf. For a time, he was chief of the clan, and when he died, his nephew – Abdul Muttalib the son of Hashim, succeeded him as the new chief. Abdul Muttalib exhibited all the qualities which had made the names of his father and grandfather great and famous … Reacting to the depravity of the times, the members of Banu Hashim, were prompted, a half-century before the birth of Muhammad, to make some tentative efforts to arrest the moral decline of the Arabs and to improve the social, economic and intellectual climate of the country … The Banu Hashim also interested itself in the economic welfare of the Arabs, and inaugurated a system of trade with neighboring countries by sending caravans to Syria in summer and to Yemen in winter … the caravan trade were unquestionably great gifts of the Banu Hashim to the Arabs. But their greatest gift, not only to the Arabs, but to the whole world, was going to be the child to be called Muhammad, the son of Abdullah ibn Abdul Muttalib and Amina bint Wahab. He was going to be the greatest benefactor not only of the Arabs but of all mankind. (From: The Life and Times of Muhammad, Sir John Glubb, as cited in Restatement of History of Islam and Muslims)

And as for Umayya:

“The clan of Banu Umayyad as well as the dynasty that ruled the Umayyad Caliphate are named after Umayya ... [the so-called] father of Harb (Abu ‘Amr) ibn Umayya and Abu al-'As.”

AS to the origin of Umayya historians vary; some mainly sunni historians claim that Umayya was the son of ‘Abd Shams son of ‘Abd Manaf, other mostly sunni historians say that Umayya was one of ‘Abd Manaf’s sons. Yet other sunni historians such as ‘Abbaas ‘Eqaad Mesri has stated that the ancestry of Bani Umayya is questionable and uncertain.

Hasan ibn Ali Tabari in Kaamel Bahahi, vol. 1, p. 269 said that the sunni ibn abi al Hadid had said that Umayya was a Roman slave who ‘Abd Shams bought, and according to the customs of the preIslam Arabs, he called him his son.

Most Shi’ah historians and scholars have rejected the sunni claims regarding Umayya being from ‘Abd Manaaf, too:

Sayyed Sadr al Din Sharaf al Din in his book, Haashem wa Umayya fel Jaaheliyah, states that ‘Abd Shams had adopted Umayya.

’EmaadZaadeh Esfahaani in his book: Life of Sayyed al Shohada, Abi Abdellah al Hosain, vol. 1, p. 152, 224 states that ‘Abd Manaf was a rich tradesman who had attained Umayya, a young Roman slave, living at the same time with Hashim son of ‘Abd Manaf; also he states that some historians believe that Umayya was a slave freed by Bani Saqif and the son of an adulteress; and because he was an attractive and clever young man, ‘Abd Shams became interested in him and Umayya pleased him and thus he adopted him.

AbulQaasem Ali ibn Ahmad Kufi, a scholar of the 4th century A.H., states that ‘Abd Shams son of ‘Abd Manaf, the brother of Hashim son of ‘Abd Manaf had a Roman slave named Umayya whom he adopted, thus the Banu Umayyad are the descendants of this non-Arab Roman Umayya.

In other words Umayya and thus the Bani Umayyad are not from Quraysh.

‘Allaamah Mohammad Baaqer Majlesi narrates the same fact from the two books: Kaamel al Saqifah and Elzaam al Nawaaseb, and then he states that Umayya was the Roman slave of ‘Abd Shams whom he freed and adopted, and he was thus being called Umayya son of ‘Abd Shams. (Behaar al Anwaar, vol. 31, p. 458)

Then the ‘Allaamah concludes that Banu Umayya are not from Quraysh, rather have attached themselves to this clan.

‘Allaamah Mohammad Baaqer Majlesi clarifies that Umayya was a Byzantine -eastern Roman- slave of 'Abd Shams. When he found him intelligent and clever he freed him and adopted him as his son, as a result of which he began to be called Umayyah son of 'Abd Shams, as Zayd (ibn al-Harithah) was called Zayd ibn Muhammad before the verse [Qur’an, Surah Ahzaab, 33:5] was revealed [to prohibit calling adopted children by the names of those who adopted them, and therefore Zayd was called Zayd ibn al-Harithah from then on]. (Behaar al Anwaar, vol. 8, p. 383)

Amir al Mo’menin, Hadrat Ali (SBUH) in part of a letter responding to Mo’aawiyah who was demanding the province of Shaam (Syria …) from Amir al Mo'menin, told him: (letter 17 of the Nahj al Balaaghah)

“… As for your saying that both of us are sons of 'Abd Manaf, such are we*, but Umayyah is not like Hashim, nor Harb like ‘Abd al-Muttalib, nor Abu Sufyan like Abu Talib.

The muhajir (immigrant from Mecca to Medina) is not like him who was spared and freed (on the day of fall of Mecca), nor one of pure descent (Sarih) is like him who has been attached (Lasiq**), nor the pursuer of truth is like the adherent to wrong, nor a believer is like a hypocrite.

How bad are the successors who go on following their predecessors who have fallen in the Fire of Hell! …”

* If, most probably, by “we” Amir al Mo’menin (SBUH) meant “we the Banu Hashim”, then that is quite straight forward; and if by “we” he (SBUH) meant “we, the banu Hashim and the Banu Umayya”, then his next statements clarify that he (SBUH) meant, the Banu Hashim for real and the Banu Umayya through attribution, attachment and adoption.

** Men of letters have given Lasiq to mean: "One who is attributed to other than his father.”

In the Sharh (explanation) of the Nahj al Balaaghah by Fayd(z) al Islam p. 866, in this regard  ‘Allaamah Majlesi has been quoted to have said that in the era before Islam when a person, who had a slave, wished to attribute him to himself ( to be called like his own son), he used to free the slave and marry him to an Arab girl and then attribute him to himself, as the father of Zobayr ibn ‘Awaam was attributed to Khowaylad; therefore Bani Umayya are not from Quraysh rather are attributed to them; and after this letter of Hadrat Ali (SBUH), Mo’aawiyah did not dare to refute it.

It is also noteworthy to mention that sunni scholars themselves confirm that there is even doubt whether Harb (Abu ‘Amr) who is known as the son of Umayyah was really his son or a slave brought up by him. It is reported that the lineage expert Daghfal (Ibn Hanzalah) told Mo’aawiyah that the Quraysh knew that Harb, who was called Dhakwan, was the slave of Umayya. (al-Aghani, vol.1, p.12; Sharh Nahj al-Balaaghah of ibn Abi’l-Hadid, vol.17, pp.231-232) 

In addition, Mu'awiyah's mother Hind led a life of vileness and immorality. The sunni Az-Zamakhshari (Abu'l-Qasim Mahmud ibn 'Umar [467/1075- 538/1144]) has written in his book Rabi'u 'l-abrar that Mu'awiyah's father was traced back to four different men!

Also the sunni ibn abi al Hadid has mentioned that Ziyaad, known as the son of his father, in response to a letter of Mu’awiyah rebuking him for his mother, Somayyah’s immoral acts, told Mu’awiyah that if he was the son of Somayyah, Mu’awiyah was ibn Jamaa’at, son of a group. (Sharh of Nahj, vol. 16, p. 326)

To be continued …