Navigation Menu 

The Significance of An Autograph In History

Exhibit A: Hanzalah ibn Abī ʿĀmir

Exhibit B: The Sons of Waḥwaḥ ibn al Aslat

Exhibit C: The Sons of al ʿAbbās

Exhibit D: ʿAmr ibn al ʿĀṣ

Summary

The Significance of An Autograph In History

“Autograph” in historical usage is not merely a signature. It means literal handwriting from the person themselves, not a copied report.

That is the point of using inscriptions and documentary artefacts: direct material traces tied to named individuals, used against the claim that early Islam and the Ṣaḥābah are only known from later written histories.

Exhibit A: Hanzalah ibn Abī ʿĀmir

Hanzalah ibn Abī ʿĀmir is the Companion known for being washed by the angels at Uhud, meaning his body was literally washed and purified after martyrdom, as a Muslim body is washed before burial.

A very early written mention of him is from is Ibn Isḥāq, who identifies Abū ʿĀmir ʿAbd ʿAmr ibn Ṣayfī ibn al Nuʿmān, from Banū Ḍubayʿah ibn Zayd, as the father of Hanzalah, “the one washed” on the day of Uhud. (Ibn Isḥāq, Life of Muhammad, 277–278.) Since Hanzalah died in 625 CE, the dating claim matters.

Then comes the autograph evidence of him: A Paleo Arabic inscription in the Hijaz, near Makkah, about 100 metres uphill from a masjid linked to ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib عليه السلام, beside a vineyard known as Karmat ʿAddās al Naṣrānī.

The historical setting is linked to the account of ʿAddās, the Christian from Nineveh, who met the Prophet ﷺ after the rejection at Ṭāʾif, brought grapes, heard the basmalah, and recognised the mention of Yūnus ibn Mattā عليه السلام, then kissed the Prophet’s head, hands, and feet, before being warned by his masters not to leave his religion.

The inscriptions themselves are preserved as first person statements:

“In your name, our Lord. I am Ḥanzalah, son of ʿAbd ʿAmr. I urge piety towards Allah,” and “In your name, our Lord. I am ʿAbd al ʿUzzā, son of Sufyān. I urge piety towards Allah.” (Ahmad al Jallad, “A Paleo Arabic Inscription of a Companion of Muhammad,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 83, no. 1 (2024): 4.)

Exhibit B: The Sons of Waḥwaḥ ibn al Aslat

Waḥūḥ ibn al Aslat is named in the biographical tradition with full lineage, as the brother of Abū Qays ibn al Aslat, and Abū Qays did not accept Islam. Waḥūḥ had companionship and witnessed al Khandaq and what came after it. (Yūsuf ibn ʿAbd al Barr, Al Istiʿāb fī Maʿrifat al Aṣḥāb, ed. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al Muḥsin, vol. 6; Cairo: Hijr, 2019, 496.)

The sceptical challenge is stated plainly: the first written references are centuries later, so why not call Waḥwaḥ fictional? The reply is to focus on the sons.

Ibn al Kalbī names Miḥṣan and Ḥuṣayn as the sons of Waḥwaḥ, killed at al ʿUdhayb, meaning they were killed at al Qādisiyyah, and no descendants remained. (Hishām al Kalbī, Jamharat al Nasab, ed. Ḥasan Nājī; Beirut: ʿĀlam al Kutub, 1986, 647.)

Ibn Saʿd then names Maḥmūd ibn Waḥūḥ as the husband of Rifāʿah, Umm al Qāsim bint Thābit al Khaṭmiyyah, who accepted Islam and gave bayʿah to the Prophet ﷺ. (Muḥammad ibn Saʿd, Al Ṭabaqāt al Kabīr, ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad, vol. 10; Cairo: Maktabat al Khānjī, 2001, 334.)

Al Bukhārī’s historical work also lists Ḥuṣayn ibn Waḥwaḥ among the Ṣaḥābah, showing continued recognition in the early critical biographical tradition. (Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl, Al Tārīkh al Kabīr, ed. Muḥammad al Dabbāsī, vol. 3; Riyad: Al Nāshir al Mutamayyiz, 2019, 330.)

A later work then mentions another son, Muḥammad ibn Waḥūḥ ibn al Aslat, saying he witnessed the conquest of Makkah and was present at the conquest of Iraq, attributed to Ibn Abī Dāwūd. (ʿĪsā ibn Sulaymān, Al Jāmiʿ limā fī al Muṣannafāt al Jawāmiʿ, ed. Muṣṭafā Nāḥū, vol. 1; Cairo: Al Maktaba al Islāmiyya, 2009, 135.)

Then comes the autograph proving their existence: An inscription in the Hijaz in Arabic that reads,

“We are the sons of Waḥwaḥ ibn ʿĀmir al Anṣārī.

We have marked off this land except with its rightful due,” functioning as first person plural testimony, not a later report.

The dating logic is tied to the sons’ reported lifetimes and the early style of script and orthography, with the added argument that obscure names are not the typical targets of fabrication.

Exhibit C: The Sons of al ʿAbbās

The ʿAbbāsid name is tied to al ʿAbbās, not ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās. One early anchor names al ʿAbbās together with his son al Faḍl among those from the Prophet’s ﷺ family who stood firm. (Ibn Isḥāq, Life of Muhammad, 569.)

Another early report names Tamām ibn al ʿAbbās as governor over Madīnah under ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib عليه السلام. (Sayf ibn ʿUmar, Al Fitna wa Waqaʿat al Jamal, ed. Aḥmad ʿArmūsh; Beirut: Dār al Nafāʾis, 1993,  119.)

Then come the inscriptions on the old pilgrimage route between Madīnah and Wādī Yanbuʿ.

One reads,

“O Allah, forgive al Faḍl ibn al ʿAbbās, آمين,” and another reads, “O Allah, forgive Tamām ibn al ʿAbbās.”

The two brothers wrote the same duʿāʾ in the same place on the same rock, one above the other, with another inscription by al Faḍl on the same rock.

The dating argument is tied to al Faḍl’s earlier death, so the paired placement implies writing during overlapping lifetimes, not decades apart.

The possible objection about someone later writing on behalf of the dead is answered through inscription formulae, context, location, and typical epigraphic patterns, with the claim that first person style, placement, and travel context fit self authored writing more than later commemorative writing.

Exhibit D: ʿAmr ibn al ʿĀṣ (d. 664 CE)

A narrative in al Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik, mentions that ʿUmar ibn al Khaṭṭāb went out with a riding party and ʿAmr ibn al ʿĀṣ was among them. (Mālik ibn Anas, Al Muwaṭṭaʾ: The Recension of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā al Laythī (d. 234/848), trans. Mohammad Fadel and Connell Monette; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2019, 85.)

Then comes documentary evidence: A Greek papyrus, PERF 556, carrying Greek text with the seal of ʿAmr ibn al ʿĀṣ, linked to early Muslim administration in Egypt, probably from Herakleopolis. (Adolf Grohmann, From the World of Arabic Papyri (Cairo: Al Maʿārif Press, 1952) 115–116.)

The letter orders fodder (coarse agricultural foodstuff) and monthly provisions, requires a receipt, commands recording, and restricts billeting to a specific man.

The seal is described as an oval seal stone imprint showing a charging bull with its head lowered, used as strong material authentication. (P. Soucek, “Early Islamic Seals: Their Artistic And Cultural Importance,” in E. Ehrenberg, Leaving No Stones Unturned; USA: Eisenbrauns, 2002, 247–248.)

The dating is known through the document’s own calendrical system, with Ṭūbah and the first indiction, corresponding to 6 January 643 CE.

Conclusion

An autograph inscription is far stronger proof for the existence of the Ṣaḥābah than later written reports. The Paleo Arabic inscription attributed to Ḥanzalah ibn Abī ʿĀmir preserves his own first person wording carved into rock in the Hijaz, reading,

“I am Ḥanzalah, son of ʿAbd ʿAmr. I urge piety towards Allah.”

This is strong proof of the Companion who died at Uḥud in 625 CE.

The inscription of the sons of Waḥwaḥ ibn al Aslat preserves first person plural testimony:

“We are the sons of Waḥwaḥ ibn ʿĀmir al Anṣārī.”

This links Miḥṣan, Ḥuṣayn, Maḥmūd, and Muḥammad ibn Waḥwaḥ, all named in the biographical sources, to a carved statement in the Hijaz that predates the mid seventh century.

The inscriptions of al Faḍl ibn al ʿAbbās and Tamām ibn al ʿAbbās, found on the ancient pilgrimage route between Madīnah and Wādī Yanbuʿ, preserve their own duʿāʾ in first person form:

“O Allah, forgive al Faḍl ibn al ʿAbbās” and “O Allah, forgive Tamām ibn al ʿAbbās.”

Their placement one above the other on the same rock strengthens the argument that both brothers were alive and wrote them during the early decades after the Prophet ﷺ.

The Greek papyrus PERF 556 bears the original clay seal of ʿAmr ibn al ʿĀṣ and records an administrative order issued in Egypt, dated to 6 January 643 CE. This ties a named Companion to a surviving official document with precise bureaucratic detail and a physical seal impression.

The strength of this evidence lies in its early dating and physical survival. Specific names are carved. Lineages are preserved. Administrative authority is documented in writing and sealed. Some of the individuals, such as Waḥwaḥ and his sons, are not widely known figures, which makes later invention HIGHLY improbable. When first person inscriptions and authenticated seals survive from the seventh century, dismissing them as fabricates would be a cope. Thus we have very strong historical proof that the Sahabah really existed.

Entire Notes From The History Lesson

The Significance of An Autograph In History

When someone says “I have somebody’s autograph,” Some may say it means a signature. That is the most basic understanding of the phrase.

But when historians use the term “autograph,” it means the person’s own literal handwriting. It is not a copy of their handwriting. It is something they directly wrote with their own hand.

So when we speak about an autograph historically, we mean we have something directly from the person themselves.

Several examples will be shown from different Sahabah, where their own physical writing appears in inscriptions. These are things archaeologists managed to discover.

If someone says, “We do not know if this person existed. He is a fictional person. These stories are all myths. No Muslim source mentions him until later historians, around 100 years after,” then the reply here is to show literal inscriptions of the people we claim existed, like the sahabah.

Exhibit A: Hanzalah ibn Abī ʿĀmir

The first example is Hanzalah ibn Abī ʿĀmir.

He died at the Battle of Uhud. His martyrdom was so great that the angels descended and washed his body. When it is said that they washed him, it means they literally washed him. They purified his body and cleaned it, just as a Muslim body is washed before burial.

One of the earliest sources for this man, without relying on an isnād system? Is Ibn Isḥāq, in the Sīrah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

Ibn Isḥāq died in 767 CE/150AH.

He mentions Abū ʿĀmir ʿAbd ʿAmr ibn Ṣayfī ibn al Nuʿmān, from Banū Ḍubayʿah ibn Zayd, the father of Hanzalah, the one washed on the day of Uhud. (Ibn Isḥāq, Life of Muhammad, 277–278.)

So this person is the father of Hanzalah, and Hanzalah died in 625 CE at Uhud.

Pay attention to how early the inscription is.

The evidence is an inscription. The artefact here is not a coin. It is an inscription. An inscription is when a person engraves writing onto a rock, bone, stone, or another hard solid object.

This inscription was discovered in the Hijaz. The Hijaz is the region from around Tabūk down towards Makkah. It was located about 100 metres uphill from the masjid of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, close to Makkah.

The inscription is written in Arabic. It dates before 625 CE, which means it is within the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. This is important because Hanzalah died in 625 CE.

This inscription was discovered recently by Ahmad al Jallad, an orientalist and archaeologist who specialises in ancient Semitic languages, especially Arabic. He published an article and released the picture of the inscription.

The inscription is located on a prominent boulder approximately one hundred metres uphill from an abandoned masjid, which is said to have been built by the caliph ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib عليه السلام, who ruled between 656 and 661.

It was documented during the spring campaign of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies’ Mecca–Taʾif epigraphic survey project, which was directed by the authors. The boulder that contains these texts is situated next to a vineyard known as Karmat ʿAddās al Naṣrānī, named after a Christian servant with that name.

Ibn Isḥāq mentions that after the Prophet ﷺ was rejected in Ṭāʾif, he sought refuge in the shade of a vineyard owned by two Makkan leaders, ʿUtbah and Shaybah, the sons of Rabīʿah. When they saw his difficult situation, they sent their servant boy, ʿAddās, with some grapes. Before eating the grapes, the Prophet ﷺ said the basmalah. ʿAddās recognised this and said that it was not the speech of the people of that land.

The Prophet ﷺ asked him about himself, and ʿAddās replied that he was a Christian from Nineveh. The Prophet ﷺ said that this was the town of Yūnus ibn Mattā عليه السلام.

When ʿAddās heard this, he recognised the truth of what was being said and began kissing the Prophet’s head, hands, and feet. When ʿAddās returned to his masters, they questioned him. After he explained what had happened, they warned him not to leave his religion, saying that their religion was better than the religion of Muḥammad ﷺ.

The two inscriptions are as follows:

Inscription one

“In your name, our Lord. I am Ḥanzalah, son of ʿAbd ʿAmr. I urge piety towards Allah.”

Inscription two

“In your name, our Lord. I am ʿAbd al ʿUzzā, son of Sufyān. I urge piety towards Allah.”

(Ahmad al Jallad, “A Paleo Arabic Inscription of a Companion of Muhammad,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 83, no. 1 (2024): 4.)

PDF for the Paleo-Arabic Inscription of Muhammad’s Companion by Ahmad Al Jallad

939485804-Al-Jallad-A-Paleo-Arabic-Inscription

Exhibit B: The Sons of Waḥwaḥ ibn al Aslat

Waḥūḥ ibn al Aslat — and the name of al Aslat was ʿĀmir — son of Bajsham ibn Wāʾil ibn Zayd ibn Qays ibn ʿĀmir ibn Murrah ibn Mālik al Awsī al Anṣārī. He was the brother of Abū Qays ibn al Aslat, the poet. Abū Qays ibn al Aslat did not accept Islam.

Al Zubayr mentioned, from his uncle Muṣʿab, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿUmārah, who said: Waḥūḥ had companionship with the Prophet ﷺ. (Yūsuf ibn ʿAbd al Barr, Al Istiʿāb fī Maʿrifat al Aṣḥāb, ed. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al Muḥsin, vol. 6 (Cairo: Hijr, 2019) 496.)

The first reference we have for Waḥwaḥ is very late. It is around 400 years after his existence.

So someone could say: “This is a fictional character. This is just an invented person. Why should we believe in Waḥwaḥ ibn al Aslat?”

But the title is “The Sons of Waḥwaḥ.” So we are not exactly interested in Waḥwaḥ alone. We are interested in his sons.

The next reference is Ibn al Kalbī. He was an early scholar. He specialised in ancient Arabian religion, Arabian lore, Arab genealogy, Arab tribes, and pre Islamic Arabia. He was very well known for that field. He wrote a book about the genealogy and tribes of the Arabs called Jamharat al Nasab, and he died in 204 AH, around 819 CE.

Ibn al Kalbī mentions two people: Miḥṣan and Ḥuṣayn. Again, without relying on an isnād here, he says that Miḥṣan and Ḥuṣayn, not al Ḥusayn, but Ḥuṣayn, were the sons of Waḥwaḥ and were killed at al Qādisiyyah.

Miḥṣan and Ḥuṣayn, the two sons of Waḥūḥ, were killed at al ʿUdhayb. No descendants remained for them, meaning they were killed at the Battle of al Qādisiyyah. (Hishām al Kalbī, Jamharat al Nasab, ed. Ḥasan Nājī (Beirut: ʿĀlam al Kutub, 1986) 647.)

So now we have Miḥṣan ibn Waḥwaḥ, and Ḥuṣayn ibn Waḥwaḥ.

The next reference is Ibn Saʿd. Ibn Saʿd was also from the early generations. He was a historian. He wrote a multi volume book called al Ṭabaqāt al Kabīr.

Someone could still say: “You Muslims are 200 years later. You have no early records, especially for this Waḥwaḥ person. How come you could not find him in Sahih Al Bukhārī?”

Ibn Saʿd says there was a Maḥmūd ibn Waḥwaḥ, and this Maḥmūd married Rifāʿah bint Thābit. #

Rifāʿah — and she is Umm al Qāsim, the daughter of Thābit ibn al Fākih ibn Thaʿlabah ibn Sāʿidah ibn ʿĀmir ibn Ghiyān ibn ʿĀmir ibn Khaṭmah. It is also said that she was Kabshah, the daughter of Aws ibn ʿAdī ibn Umayyah al Khaṭmī.

Maḥmūd ibn Waḥūḥ ibn al Aslat married her.

Rifāʿah accepted Islam and gave the pledge to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

(Muḥammad ibn Saʿd, Al Ṭabaqāt al Kabīr, ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad, vol. 10; Cairo: Maktabat al Khānjī, 2001, 334.)

So apparently Waḥwaḥ had sons called Miḥṣan, Ḥuṣayn, and Maḥmūd.

Bukhārī mentions Ḥuṣayn ibn Waḥwaḥ as a Sahabi (Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl, Al Tārīkh al Kabīr, ed. Muḥammad al Dabbāsī, vol. 3; Riyad: Al Nāshir al Mutamayyiz, 2019, 330.)

Bukhārī is still late in comparison to the time of the Sahabah, since he died in 256 AH, around 870 CE.

Then comes a much later reference. Abū Mūsā is mentioned here, and the point is that this is very late compared to the people being discussed. This is hundreds of years after Waḥwaḥ and his sons.

But this later source has something interesting to tell us.

It mentions that Waḥwaḥ had a fourth child called Muḥammad. So now there is Maḥmūd, Ḥuṣayn, Miḥṣan, and Muḥammad. The first time this Muḥammad ibn Waḥwaḥ is clearly known as a Sahabi is through a much later source.

Muḥammad ibn Waḥūḥ ibn al Aslat.

He witnessed the conquest of Mecca and was present at the conquest of Iraq. This was said by Ibn Abī Dāwūd. (ʿĪsā ibn Sulaymān, Al Jāmiʿ limā fī al Muṣannafāt al Jawāmiʿ, ed. Muṣṭafā Nāḥū, vol. 1; Cairo: Al Maktaba al Islāmiyya, 2009, 135.)

So Waḥwaḥ has 4 children. Waḥwaḥ is classed as a Sahabi.

He had Maḥmūd, whose death date is not clear here.

He had Muḥammad, who was definitely alive around 633 CE.

Miḥṣan and Ḥuṣayn both died at the Battle of al Qādisiyyah, according to these Muslim sources.

Now the question is: what are the chances that we have his children on record, testifying that they exist, from their own mouths?

Now we have an inscription.

This is another artefact. Its type is an inscription.

It is located in the Hijaz region. It is written in Arabic, and it predates the 640s. The dating is argued because Muḥammad was alive around 633 CE, while Miḥṣan and Ḥuṣayn died around 636 CE at al Qādisiyyah, and Maḥmūd and Waḥwaḥ belong to the earlier family generation.

This inscription was discovered by Muḥammad al Maghdhāwī. He is a Saudi researcher known for documenting ancient Arabian and early Arabic inscriptions. He discovered this inscription and published it on 27 March 2023.

https://x.com/mohammed93athar/status/1640501660375040003?s=20

Waḥūḥ ibn al Aslat.

The name of al Aslat was ʿĀmir ibn Bajsham ibn Wāʾil ibn Zayd ibn Qays ibn ʿĀmir ibn Murrah ibn Mālik al Awsī al Anṣārī. He was the brother of Abū Qays ibn al Aslat, the poet, and Abū Qays ibn al Aslat did not accept Islam.

Al Zubayr mentioned, from his uncle Muṣʿab, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿUmārah, who said: Waḥūḥ had companionship with the Prophet ﷺ, and he witnessed the Battle of the Trench and the events that followed it.

His brother Abū Qays said about him, when he set out to Mecca with Abū ʿĀmir:

“I see Waḥūḥ has turned away from me with his decision,
as though I were a man from Ḥaḍramawt, a stranger.

As though I were a man who has departed, and there is no affection between us,
while you remain beloved and close within the heart.

The sons of co-wives are a people, yet I am
your brother, so do not let a liar deceive you about me.

Your brother, when a great matter comes to you,
will carry it, even when hardships arise.”

These are from verses that he mentioned.

It is also mentioned that Abū Qays ibn al Aslat set out intending to go to the Prophet ﷺ, but ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ubayy said to him: “By Allah, you fear the swords of Banū al Khazraj.” He replied: “Indeed. By Allah, I will not accept Islam this year.” He died within that same year.

The inscription says:

“Naḥnu abnāʾ Waḥwaḥ ibn ʿĀmir al Anṣārī. Nuḥarrimu arḍanā hādhihi illā bi ḥaqqihā.”

This means:

“We are the sons of Waḥwaḥ ibn ʿĀmir al Anṣārī. We make this land of ours inviolable, except by its right.”

Waḥūḥ ibn al Aslat — and the name of al Aslat was ʿĀmir ibn Bajsham ibn Wāʾil ibn Zayd ibn Qays ibn ʿĀmir ibn Murrah ibn Mālik al Anṣārī al Awsī. He was the brother of Abū Qays ibn al Aslat, the poet, and Abū Qays did not accept Islam.

Al Zubayr mentioned, from his uncle, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿUmārah, who said: Waḥūḥ had companionship with the Prophet ﷺ, and he witnessed the Battle of the Trench and the events that followed it.

His brother Abū Qays said about him when he set out to Mecca with Abū ʿĀmir al Rāhib:

“I see Waḥūḥ has turned away from me in affection,
as though I were a man from Ḥaḍramawt, a stranger.

As though I were one who has gone away and no affection remains between us,
while you remain beloved, close within the heart.

The sons of co-wives are a people, yet I am your brother,
so let no liar deceive you concerning me.

Your brother, when a great matter comes upon you,
will carry it, even as hardships return again and again.”

It is also said that Abū Qays ibn al Aslat set out intending to go to the Prophet ﷺ. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ubayy said to him: “By Allah, you feared the swords of Banū al Khazraj.” He replied: “By Allah, I will not accept Islam this year.” He then died within that same year.

This was transmitted by Abū ʿUmar.

“In the name of Allah. O Allah, forgive Maḥmūd ibn Waḥūḥ, and Thābit ibn Muʿādh ibn Waḥūḥ al Anṣārī.”

Maḥmūd ibn Waḥūḥ ibn al Aslat — and the name of al Aslat was ʿĀmir ibn Bajsham ibn Wāʾil — al Anṣārī al Awsī رضي الله عنه.

He was the husband of Rifāʿah, who is Umm al Qāsim, the daughter of Thābit ibn al Fākih ibn Thaʿlabah al Khaṭmī رضي الله عنها. She accepted Islam and gave the pledge to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

So we know it was more than one person. Minimum two Companions wrote this.

They say: “We are the sons of Waḥwaḥ.” They are speaking in the first person. They are the ones writing, and they are saying “sons.” So it is more than one Sahabi.

In the best case, 3 or 4 Sahabah wrote this.

In the lowest case, two Companions wrote this. The point is that there were sons of Waḥwaḥ standing in that exact spot, where the inscription is found, and writing this statement.

The earliest written sources for some of these people range from around 200 years to 600 years after their existence. Yet here we have their own testimony, right there, in an inscription.

If someone wanted to fabricate, why choose a niche person like Waḥwaḥ? Most Muslims do not even know who Waḥwaḥ is, let alone that he had 4 children.

Even in our own literature, very late references had to be used to find some scholars who clearly classified some of these people as Sahabah.

Another question is asked: “Is there any way to date these? I know rocks can date back millions of years, but is there a way to date the specific writing?”

The answer is that dating the rock and dating the inscription are two different things.

The age of the rock is not the issue. The issue is how to date the writing carved onto the rock.

The inscription is dated by several things.

One way is the content, such as when it says, “We are the sons of Waḥwaḥ.”

Another way is the orthography, meaning the spelling and writing style.

So the inscription is dated by its wording, script, orthography, and historical context.

Exhibit C: The Sons of al ʿAbbās

The ʿAbbāsid Empire got its name from al ʿAbbās.

It is not named after ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās was the son of al ʿAbbās.

So the name comes from al ʿAbbās himself.

The ʿAbbāsid dynasty is from the lineage of al ʿAbbās.

We will go into one of the earliest testimonies that mentions his existence, without relying on the isnād system.

The source mentions something important. It says that among the Muhājirūn who stood firm were members of the Prophet’s ﷺ family: ʿAlī, al ʿAbbās, and al Faḍl ibn al ʿAbbās. (Ibn Isḥāq, Life of Muhammad, 569.)

What can be taken from this, especially the bold part? It shows that al ʿAbbās had a son named al Faḍl.

Another early reference is Sayf ibn ʿUmar in his book al Fitnah wa Waqʿat al Jamal. This is an early book that speaks about the early disputes, including the events around ʿAlī, Ṭalḥah, al Zubayr, and the Mother of the Believers ʿĀʾishah. Sayf ibn ʿUmar died around 200 AH, approximately 815 CE.

A second quote is included because al Faḍl has already been mentioned. So there may be another son. The report says that the news reached ʿAlī while he was in Madinah, so he appointed Tamām ibn al ʿAbbās as governor over Madinah. So Tamām ibn al ʿAbbās was governor of Madinah under the leadership of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib. (Sayf ibn ʿUmar, Al Fitna wa Waqaʿat al Jamal, ed. Aḥmad ʿArmūsh (Beirut: Dār al Nafāʾis, 1993) 119.)

So now we have al Faḍl ibn al ʿAbbās and Tamām ibn al ʿAbbās. Al Faḍl ibn al ʿAbbās died in 639 CE, according to the date being used here. Tamām ibn al ʿAbbās died in 658 CE, according to the date being used here.

Now let us see what the inscription has to do with al Faḍl and Tamām.

Again, this artefact is an inscription. It was discovered on an ancient pilgrimage route used by Muslims for ḥajj. This was a common route used by Muslims a very long time ago, over 1300 years ago.

It is a route between Madinah and Wādī Yanbuʿ. Wādī Yanbuʿ is to the west of Madinah, and Makkah lies further south. This is where the inscription is located.

The inscription is claimed to predate 640 CE, and that is also the dating given by Muḥammad al Maghdhāwī. He discovered it and released it online on 20 October 2018.

https://x.com/mohammed93athar/status/1053673213228662785?s=1-2&t=2NDwhNCeRmxI9A1914r7BQ

The inscription reads:

“Allāhumma ighfir lil Faḍl ibn al ʿAbbās. Āmīn.”

This means:

“O Allah, forgive al Faḍl ibn al ʿAbbās. Āmīn.”

So one of the sons of al ʿAbbās wrote this.

Then we also have an inscription of Tamām ibn al ʿAbbās.

This second inscription was found around the same area, around the same location, on the ancient pilgrimage route between Madinah and Wādī Yanbuʿ. It is also in Arabic, and it is also claimed to predate 640 CE. It was also discovered by Muḥammad al Maghdhāwī.

The inscription reads:

“Allāhumma ighfir li Tamām ibn al ʿAbbās.”

This means:

“O Allah, forgive Tamām ibn al ʿAbbās.” (Muḥammad al Magdhawī, published on October 20th, 2018)

So we have two sons of al ʿAbbās literally asking for the same duʿāʾ, making the same duʿāʾ.

Now, why is this claimed to predate 640 CE/19AH?

Al Faḍl died in 639 CE. Tamām died in 658 CE. There is about a 20 year gap between them. Someone could say: “They could have written at different times.” That is possible in theory.

They were standing in the same spot and wrote the inscriptions right above each other.

The two siblings wrote the same duʿāʾ for themselves, one above the other.

The inscription of Tamām is above, and the inscription of al Faḍl is below.

All of it is literally in the same spot on the same rock. The one on the right is another inscription by al Faḍl, where al Faḍl makes another duʿāʾ.

So we know they must have been alive at the same time.

Tamām must have written this with his sibling al Faḍl before al Faḍl passed away. Since al Faḍl passed away about 20 years before Tamām, and since the inscriptions were written right next to each other, Tamām must have written his before al Faḍl passed away in 639 CE.

That is why the inscription is dated before 640 CE. They wrote it either in the year before al Faḍl passed away, or at some point earlier than that.

Someone may ask “how do we know it was written by these specific individuals and not someone else on their behalf?”

These inscriptions do not fit the usual traits of someone making duʿāʾ on behalf of someone else.

They are right above each other.

They are in the same exact area.

What is much more likely is that the two brothers were there while passing by, wrote the inscriptions down, and then continued on their journey. This was the common pattern of how people wrote inscriptions back then.

Exhibit D: ʿAmr ibn al ʿĀṣ (d. 664 CE)

Now another example is this inscription on rock, but a written administrative document.

ʿAmr ibn al ʿĀṣ رضي الله عنه. He was a Companion of the Prophet ﷺ and a major figure in the early Muslim expansion, especially in Egypt. He later served as governor.

One of the early narrative mentions of him appears in al Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik. It is reported that ʿUmar ibn al Khaṭṭāb رضي الله عنه went out with a riding party that included ʿAmr ibn al ʿĀṣ. (Mālik ibn Anas, Al Muwaṭṭaʾ Book 2 Hadith 85)

This shows that ʿAmr ibn al ʿĀṣ was already present among the early leadership and companions of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه.

Now to move the focus onto the artefact, which is a papyrus.

Its catalogue reference is PERF number 556.
The language of the document is Greek.

It has Greek text and underneath that is the seal of ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, commander of the Muslim army in Egypt. The place of discovery of this document is probably Herakleopolis.

This already tells us something important. Even under early Muslim rule, administrative documents in regions like Egypt continued to be written in Greek, which was the existing bureaucratic language.

The document reads:

1. In the name of God! Ambros, Governor, to the pagarch of Herakleopolis.
2. Hand over to Amir son of Asla four bundles of fodder for two solidi, taking from him
3. a receipt, and for maintenance of his men one artaba of barley-groats per head. Jot it down
4. and send this man to a reserved place, and do not trouble this place by (billetting) others (but Amir).
5. Written on the 13th of the month of Tobi, in the first indiction. (Adolf Grohmann, From The World Of Arabic Papyri, 1952, Al-Maaref Press: Cairo (Egypt), pp. 115-116)

The above papyrus represents a letter issued by ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (‘Ambros’) to an Egyptian provincial official, the pagarch of Herakleopolis. It commands him to send a quantity of food and fodder every month for the use of ʿAmr’s forces and their horses. This letter retains the original clay seal.

It shows the imprint of an oval seal-stone bearing the image of a bull charging to the left with its head lowered. This is perhaps the best example of the use of a figural seal among early Muslims (P. Soucek, “Early Islamic Seals: Their Artistic And Cultural Importance” in E. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays On The Ancient Near East And Egypt In Honor Of Donald P. Hansen, 2002, Eisenbrauns (USA), pp. 237-259, esp. pp. 247-248 for the description of seal of ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ.)

Tobi is the calender the copts used to use, and the first indsuction means first year/rule, the date corresponds to the 6th January 643CE.