The Qur’an and Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt

 The Quran and Umayyah ibn Abi Al-Salt: Which one took from whom?

Umayyah ibn Abi Al-Salt was a veteran poet from the Thaqeef tribe, which inhabited Taif. His father was also a poet, and he had a sister named "Al-Fari'ah", two daughters, and several sons, some of whom were poets, and a brother named "Hudhayl" who was captured and killed as a polytheist during the siege of Taif.

He was one of the Hanafi school of thought who rebelled against idol worship and believed in the One God and the Last Day. They were disturbed by the moral decline that was prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula, and they looked forward to a prophet to be sent from among the Arabs. In fact, he himself hoped to be that prophet. Umayyah mingled with religious men, read their books, and quoted from them in his poetry.

He was a man of travel and trade. He used to praise some of the notables of the people, such as Abdullah ibn Jud'an, and would receive their gifts and drink wine with them. It was said that he later forbade it for himself. Sources unanimously agree that he died an unbeliever out of envy and malice. As soon as he heard of the mission of the Prophet Muhammad, he fled to Yemen with his two daughters, whom he had left behind. He began to wander throughout the Arabian Peninsula, including Yemen, Bahrain, Mecca, Syria, Medina, and Taif.

However, accounts tell us that he visited the Prophet once while he was still in Umm al-Qura and listened to Surah Yasin from him. He expressed his belief in him, confirming to the polytheists who asked him that he was on the right path. However, his deep-seated hatred prevented him from officially and permanently announcing his conversion to Islam, even though, as one account states, he had intended to go to Medina to meet the Prophet again and announce his conversion to the new religion. However, the infidels let him down and stirred up his hatred for Muhammad by reminding him that he had killed his relatives at Badr and thrown them into the well. So he had no choice but to return, tearing his clothes, crying, and hamstringing his camel, as the pre-Islamic people did.

He was not satisfied with this, but mourned these dead and began to incite the polytheists to avenge them, thus joining the front of polytheism and paganism against Islam. He remained like this until he met his death, contrary to the year in which he died, between the second and ninth of the Hijra, shortly before the Prophet conquered Taif, which is the most likely (Poets of Christianity before Islam/2nd ed./Dar Al-Mashreq/Beirut/219 and after, and Dr. Jawad Ali/Al-Mufassal in the History of the Arabs before Islam/2nd ed./Dar Al-Ilm Lil-Malayin/1978 AD/6/478-500, and Bahjat Abdul Ghafoor Al-Hadithi/Umayyah bin Abi Al-Salt - His Life and Poetry/Publications of the Ministry of Information/Baghdad/1975 AD/46 and onwards. He has biographies in “Tabaqat Al-Shu’ara”, “Al-Shi’ara’”, “Al-Aghani” and others).

Umayyah has a collection of poetry that mixes authentic poetry attributed to him, poetry attributed to him and others, and poetry that does not inspire confidence that it was his composition. This last category is the most prevalent. Most of the poetry in the collection deals with religious matters: contemplation of the universe and its significance for the Lordship of God, descriptions of the angels and their dedication to glorifying their Lord and striving to please Him, accounts of the Last Day and its judgment, rewards, and punishments, and recounting the stories of the prophets and their people, in addition to his poems praising Abdullah ibn Jud'an and boasting about himself and his tribe, and so on.

Among the religious poetry attributed to him is that which closely resembles the Holy Qur'an in meaning and wording, as if we are faced with a poet who has placed the Qur'an in his hands and strived to compose its verses into poetry. Examples of this poetry include the following:

To You is praise, blessings, and dominion, our Lord. There is nothing more exalted and glorious than You
. A Sovereign, Dominant on the Throne of Heaven. To His might, foreheads bow, and the mighty
King of the heavens and their earth prostrates. There is nothing above us that
the birds, hiding in secret, glorify Him, and when they ascend in the atmosphere of the heaven.
And out of fear of my Lord, the thunder glorifies His praise, and the trees and beasts glorify Him
. He has perpetuated the fires of enmity between us because my Lord said to the angels: Prostrate
to Adam when God perfected his creation. So they prostrated before him willingly, and they toiled . And
the enemy of God said, out of arrogance and misery: Clay upon the scorching fire, so they
blackened. So disobedience expelled him from the best home. So that is he who held a grudge in former times . And on the Day of their appointment
,
they will be gathered in groups. The Day of Mutual Loss, when caution will be of no avail. They will be in a state
of stillness with the Caller, as if they were * locusts' feet blown by the wind, spreading
out. And they will be brought forth on a level, barren plain. And the Throne, the Balance, and the Scriptures will be sent down, and they will be held to account
for that which none of them has enumerated. And on such a Day is a lesson. Some of them
are rejoicing, pleased with their resurrection. And others disobeyed.
Their refuge is Hellfire. Its Keepers will say, "What did you have?" * Did there not come to you from your Lord a warner?
They said: Yes, so we obeyed our arrogant masters, and the length of this life and age deceived us.
They said: Remain in the punishment of Allah. You have nothing but chains, shackles, and a great price.
That is their prison, from which they will not leave for a long time, even if they make noise and are patient.
Others on the heights have coveted a garden surrounded by pomegranates and green trees,
wherein they will be given to drink from a delicious cup, yellow, with no piercing or intoxication
, its mixture smooth, its water abundant, sweet to the taste, neither salty nor turbid. The
one who has knowledge of piety is not like the one who is ignorant of it, nor the one who has insight like the blind who has
no sight. So ask people about what you are ignorant of when you become blind, for blindness may reveal the news.
How many a nation that wronged passed among them? Warners came to them before them,
so believe in the meeting with Allah, your Lord. And let not arrogance avert you from His remembrance.

* * *


<> He said: My Lord, I called upon You at dawn, so correct my deeds.

I will armour people with long-tailed iron shields.
I do not see anyone to help me in my life except myself, except the Children of Israel.

Groups of missionaries who had lost their sense and modesty thought that they could attack Islam, its Messenger, and its Book with falsehood, so they began to claim that the Qur’an was stolen from the poetry of Umayya ibn Abi al-Salt because of these similarities. In fact, a number of the most prominent students of pre-Islamic literature, including orientalists before the Arabs and Muslims, saw the opposite of what the missionaries claimed. They said that these poems attributed to Umayya, which are similar to what is mentioned in the Qur’an about the creation of the universe, the heavens, and the earth, and about the afterlife and what it contains of judgment, reward, punishment, heaven, and hell, and about the previous prophets and their peoples, and so on, are poems fabricated against it.

This was said, for example, by Thor Andre, Brockelmann, and Brau among the orientalists, as well as Dr. Taha Hussein, Sheikh Muhammad Arafa, Dr. Omar Farroukh, Dr. Shawqi Dayf, and Dr. Jawad Ali and Bahjat al-Hadith are among the Arab scholars, although there are some Orientalists who claim that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, took some of his Qur’an from the poetry of this muhannad, such as the French Orientalist Clement Huart. Some of them said that the Prophet and Waraqa both derived it from a single source.

And here is a detailed account of this for the reader: The German orientalist Carl Brockelmann confirms that most of what is narrated of Umayya’s poetry is in fact fabricated, except for his elegy for the slain polytheists at Badr. And if the French orientalist Clement Huart claimed that his poetry was a source of the Qur’an, then what is true is what Thor André said, that the poems that Huart looked at in this accusation are only verses in which storytellers collected what the commentators extracted from the materials of the Qur’anic stories, and that these poems must have been attributed to Umayya since an early period not exceeding the first century AH, for al-Asma’i called him: “The Poet of the Hereafter,” and Muhammad ibn Dawud al-Antaki wanted to open the second section on religious matters in his book “al-Zahra” with Umayya’s poems (Carl Brockelmann/History of Arabic Literature/translated by Dr. Abdul Halim al-Najjar/4th ed./Dar al-Ma’arif/1/113).

Brockelmann wants to say: If there had not been poetry revolving around the religious themes we mentioned earlier attributed to Umayya from that early time, al-Asma'i would not have given it this name, and al-Antaki would not have thought of including religious poems by him in his aforementioned book. Commenting on Hawar's accusation that the Qur'an had derived some of its material from Umayya's poetry, the Orientalist Brau, author of the entry on "Umayya ibn Abi al-Salt" in the first edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam, says that the authenticity of the poems attributed to this poet is questionable, as is the case with pre-Islamic poetry in general. The claim that Muhammad borrowed something from Umayya's poems is a far-fetched assertion for a simple reason: Umayya had a broader knowledge of the myths in question,

and his myths differed in detail from those mentioned in the Qur'an. He then added that, although he ruled out the possibility that Umayya had borrowed anything from the Qur'an, he did not consider it impossible. He explains the similarity between Umayya's poetry and what is stated in the Holy Qur'an by saying that during the days of the mission and shortly before, intellectual tendencies similar to the views of the Hanafis spread and attracted many people in cities such as Mecca and Taif, and were nourished and stimulated by both Jewish interpretations of the Torah and Muslim myths. Brau then tells us what Tor André concluded, namely that there is nothing in Umayya's religious poems that can be authentically attributed to him, and that this type of poetry is the product of the interpreters' fabrications (Encyclopedia of Islam/Arabic translation/4/463-464).

Taha Hussein believes that "this poetry attributed to Umayya ibn Abi al-Salt and other mutanafis who were contemporaries of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who came before him was attributed to Muslims to prove that Islam had precedence and precedence in the land" (In Pre-Islamic Literature/Dar al-Ma'arif/1958/145). Sheikh Muhammad Arafa believes that if there were any real similarity between Umayya's poetry and the Holy Qur'an, the polytheists, whom the Prophet challenged to produce a verse like it, would have said that Umayya had previously said in his poetry what he included in the Qur'an, claiming that it was from God. But they did not say this; rather, they accused him of being taught by a foreign slave in Mecca. He

also asserts that Umayya's poetry does not resemble the strong, well-crafted poetry of the pre-Islamic period in its texture, as it is poetry whose craftsmanship and weakness are clearly similar to the poetry of modern poets. Hence, this poetry attributed to that sectarian fanatic is fabricated poetry and falsely attributed to him (from the commentary of Sheikh Muhammad Arafa on the entry “Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt” in “The Encyclopedia of Islam”/ 4/ 465).

As for Dr. Omar Farroukh, he confirms that the greater part of Umayyah’s poetry has been lost, and that nothing has been proven to be his with certainty except his poem mourning the polytheists killed in Badr. Likewise, we see him confirming that much of the religious poetry attributed to that poet is weakly composed and lacks luster (Dr. Omar Farroukh/ History of Arabic Literature/ 5th ed./ Dar Al-Ilm Lil-Malayin/ 1948 AD/ 1/ 217-218).

Dr. Shawqi Dayf argues that the meanings of Umayya's poetry are clearly derived from the Quran. However, this does not mean that Umayya was influenced by the Quran. Rather, he asserts that the poetry bearing his name is crude, fabricated poetry composed by storytellers and preachers in pre-Islamic eras. In response to Hawar's claim that the Quran derived some of its material from Umayya's poetry, Professor Dr. Hawar says that this orientalist had no knowledge of Arabic and the styles of the pre-Islamic era; otherwise, he would have realized that they were clearly fabricated poems, and he would not have made this erroneous judgment (Dr. Shawqi Dayf / The Pre-Islamic Era / 10th ed. / Dar Al-Maaref / pp. 395-396).

Dr. Jawad Ali asserts in his book "Al-Mufassal fi Tarikh Al-Arab" that some of Umayya's religious poetry was forged, and therefore, Umayya could not have borrowed anything from the Quran; otherwise, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Muslims would have exposed him. Based on this, he also believes that his poetry, which is in agreement with the Qur'an, was composed after Islam, because it is not found in the Torah, the Bible, or any other religious books, except the Qur'an. Most of it was composed during the era of Hajjaj to draw closer to it, especially since his religious poetry differs from his panegyric, elegiac, and other poetry, as it resembles the style of jurists, Sufis, and Christian ascetics. Narrators also repeatedly indicate that this or that poetry attributed to him had been attributed to other poets.

Moreover, he praised the Prophet, peace be upon him, and there is evidence in the poetry attributed to him that he believed in him. So how does this reconcile with his lamentation of the polytheists killed at Badr? (Al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al-Arab Qabl al-Islam/6/491-496). As for Bahjat Abd al-Ghafur al-Hadithi, he divides Umayya's religious poetry into two categories: one category that bears the influence of the Hanif school and the books of the Jews and Christians, and another category that bears the influence of the Qur'an. He tends to attribute the first part to him, as is evident from his style and meanings, while the second is attributed to him, as evidenced by the apparent weakness of his language and formulation, and his style, which is derived from the Qur’an (Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt - His Life and Poetry/127).

I searched the internet in the books of the noble prophetic hadiths for narrations that mention any of Umayya’s poetry, but I found only three verses of his in Musnad Ahmad in which he talks about the sun and the throne of God in a way that is not mentioned in the Qur’an, and that the Messenger, peace be upon him, believed him in it. This is its text:

A man and a bull under his right foot, and an eagle to his left, and a lion in wait.
And the sun rises every last night, red, its color turning
rosy. It refuses to appear to us in its messages, except as tortured or flogged.

It is also mentioned in the Musnads of Ibn Majah and Ahmad that Al-Shuraid ibn As-Samit once recited to the Prophet one hundred verses of Umayyah's poetry. Whenever he finished reciting a verse, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would say, "Hey," urging him to continue. At the end, he (peace and blessings be upon him) commented, "He almost converted to Islam." Another narration in Musnad Ahmad states that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not comment at the end of the recitation; rather, he paused, and Al-Shuraid in turn paused.

That is all there is to it. We do not know from the hadith which verses the noble Companion recited to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), nor the extent to which they resembled the Qur'an. However, there is a point that must be clarified before moving on. I do not think the noble Companion intended a specific number of one hundred, as it is not reasonable that he would have counted the verses he recited to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) one by one while reciting them. This is unimaginable, and the most likely, indeed the correct, possibility that I can think of is that he wanted to indicate that he had recited a considerable number of verses to the Master of Prophets.

I also consulted the interpretations of poems similar to the Holy Quran that Bahjat al-Hadithi provided in his treatise on Umayya. It caught my attention that these poems, or at least the verses in which this similarity exists, did not appear in any of the respected books of literature, language, history, and exegesis, such as "Jamharat Ash'ar al-Arab" by Abu Zayd al-Qurashi, "Tabaqat al-Shu'ara" by Ibn Salam, "Al-Shi'r wa al-Shu'ara" by Ibn Qutaybah, "Al-Aghani" by al-Isfahani, "Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk", or "Jami' al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an" by al-Tabari, for example. In fact, many of these poems did not appear in the first edition of the collection, let alone the fact that some of them were attributed to other poets at the same time.

Another very important point: Why did our early scholars not raise the issue of the similarity between Umayya's poetry and the Holy Quran, with the exception of Muhammad ibn Dawud al-Antaki, who apparently responded to those who accused the Quran of borrowing from Umayya by saying that this was incorrect because the Prophet (peace be upon him) could not have used in his book the poetry of a man who acknowledged his prophethood and believed in his call, and that if it were correct despite that, Umayyad would have rushed to accuse the Messenger (peace be upon him) of stealing from his poetry, thus invalidating his call (peace be upon him) with the least and easiest effort? (Al-Zahra/ Edited by Dr. Ibrahim al-Samarrai and Dr. Nour Hamoud al-Qaisi/ 2nd ed./ Al-Manar Library/ Zarqa/ 1406 AH - 1985 AD/ 2/ 503).

Ibn Dawud al-Antaki lived in the third century AH, while the author of "Al-Aghani" came a century after him. So how could the earlier poet be reassured while the later poet doubted? Or let us say: How could the earlier poet include the poetry attributed to Umayya, while al-Isfahani, who came a century after him as we said, did not? It would be more appropriate for the situation to be the other way around, where the earlier poet was closer in time to the author of the poem and thus could have settled the issue of attributing the poem to him, at least before the accumulation of narratives and the increasing difficulty of sifting through them and issuing a ruling on them.

However, such a situation is not surprising. For example, we have Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, who jointly wrote "The Biography of the Messenger of God": Ibn Ishaq wrote it, and Ibn Hisham reviewed, commented on it, and refined it. The former preceded the latter by a considerable amount of time, as is well known. However, the lateness of his time did not prevent Ibn Hisham from examining the biography written by his predecessor and from writing about what he felt should be changed, corrected, or commented on in a way that he deemed correct or closest to the truth. This was as he did when he denounced Ibn Ishaq, for example, for citing poems by Adam, Thamud, and the jinn, and even by individuals from Quraysh themselves, who he said scholars did not know of any poetry by them at all or denied the poetry attributed to them.

The issue, after all, is one of difference in the personality of the researcher, between the confident who accepts what is narrated to him and the meticulous who only accepts after scrutiny and examination... and so on. It is well known that Ibn Salam, Ibn Qutaybah, and Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani are among the ancient literary critics and historians known for their meticulous scrutiny, investigation, and refusal to accept anything at face value. Meanwhile, Ibn Dawud al-Antaki's work in his book "Al-Zahra" goes no further than collecting and arranging the poems, except occasionally adding a word here or there, usually to explain a difficult term or analyze an aspect of the love theme on which he wrote his book.

All of this supports the assertion we have heard prominent scholars of Arabic literature, both Orientalists and Arabs, repeat: the poems attributed to Umayya that bear similarities to the Qur'an are in fact fabrications. This discovery alerted me to a feeling I had experienced when reviewing Umayya's Diwan recently: I could not recall reading any of these poems in the books I just mentioned. This is why I was surprised while reading this type of Umayyad poems when I thought about writing about this issue, despite the vast amount I had read about the man before, such as in "Al-Aghani," "Tabaqat Al-Shu'ara," and "Al-Shi'r wa Al-Shu'ara," as well as in books on the history of Arabic literature written by contemporary researchers who have addressed this issue. However, they did not include any of the poems that were the subject of controversy and discussion, contenting themselves with theoretical discussion.

Similarly, the impression I felt upon reading these poems was that they were closer to the style of poetry whose author had before him verses of the Holy Quran and strove to include them in his verses. The speech is weak and uneven, and there are gaps that the poet fills in to complete the verse in any way possible. This is in contrast to Umayyad's poetry in mourning for the polytheists killed at Badr, for example, or his eulogies of Abdullah ibn Jud'an.

Needless to say, there is no point in comparing this poetry to the style of the Qur'an, with its virility, majesty, intense captivation, and overwhelming charm that penetrates hearts with overwhelming power. This makes the claim that Umayya's poetry was influenced by the Qur'an, rather than the other way around, logical and compelling, and would thrill minds and consciences if these poems were truly attributed to him. Nevertheless, I will take the difficult path and assume that the disputed poems are authentic poems that were actually recited by Umayya, and that the events that accompanied the composition of these poems are therefore also authentic events that occurred.


Now, if we trace the most important events in the lives of the Chosen One and Umayya that relate to this issue, what do we find? First of all, our poet, as stated in the accounts that spoke of him, expected to be the awaited prophet. When he learned that prophethood had passed him by, he could not endure remaining in Taif, close to the man to whom divine revelation was destined. So, he took his two daughters and fled to Yemen.This means that he was the one who was busy with Muhammad, not the other way around.

This is more likely to make him attentive to everything related to Muhammad, especially the Qur’an, which he wished, even by pulling out his tooth or even by putting out his eye, to be the prophet who receives it and conveys it to the people, out of his eagerness for fame, reputation and status among his people, ignoring, in the depths of his foolishness and black, barren envy, that God Almighty “knows best where to place His message.” It is very logical, as we have indicated, to say that he could not ignore the Messenger despite his anger, or rather: because of his anger at not being chosen as a prophet for the Arabs, and that he was hunting down the verses and surahs that were revealed to the Messenger and keeping them in mind while he composed his poetry, following the popular proverb that says: “If you miss the mission, roll in its dust.”

He is the pre-Islamic "Abduh Mushtaq," whom we can see as a forerunner of his counterpart in the Cairo "Al-Akhbar" newspaper caricature, with some different colorings here and there depending on the different nature of the role each of these two servants wanted to play and the circumstances within which he operated! Prophethood had eluded him, so let him include the texts of its revelation in his poetry; this is better than "leaving the Mawlid without chickpeas"! In doing this, he was merely following his habit before the rising of the moon of Islam, of devoting himself to the previous religious books and quoting from them in his poetry.

So, he was not forging a new path when he quoted from the Qur'an, but rather continuing on his old path. Nature is mighty, as they say! I really don't know why, instead of this futile escape from Taif, he didn't confront Muhammad and tell him to his face that he had preceded him in his poetry to what he says in his Qur'an, and that this was proof that he was not a true prophet, and therefore superior to him, at least in terms of knowledge and wisdom.

Wouldn't this be what logic would require if Umayya had the compelling evidence that some Orientalists brandish and follow them in, in a stupidity unbecoming of someone with a shred of reason, the heralds of the end of time, and behind them the tails of Muslims who have lost all sense of dignity and manhood? It is clear that the man loved to appear as a wise scholar, a description that some of his ancient biographers wrongly described him with. If wisdom was truly one of his attributes, he would not have let envy drive him astray and unsettle him in the Arab lands, south, north, east and west, out of aversion to being close to the man whom Heaven had favored over him in the matter of prophethood (although some accounts mention, as we have seen, that he visited him in Mecca and listened to what he recited to him from the Qur’an and said good words about him). Instead, he would have turned to him with a full heart and sincerity, as long as he saw that he was on the right path, as indicated by the poem in which he speaks, before the prophetic mission, about the country’s need for a prophet to guide it on the path of guidance, as well as the poem he wrote in praise of him, peace and blessings be upon him, and the religion that he brought.

However, unfortunately for him, he did not make up his mind and remained hesitant, gradually approaching the new religion with his heart, but soon the scorpions of hatred would stir within him and he would move away from it... until he finally, in a somewhat strong fit of his moral and spiritual awakening, decided to officially declare his Islam. The Quraysh stood in his way and informed him that the Muslims had killed Utbah and Shaybah, the sons of Rabi'ah, and other men of Taif who were related to him. He had no choice but to turn back the reins of his horse, turning away from the path of light and happiness, thus condemning himself to a miserable fate forever. This clearly indicates that he had never made up his mind, and this was his chronic problem with himself. So where is the wisdom here?

As for knowledge, his share of it does not go beyond, as is clear, transferring texts and stories from the books of previous nations to his poetry without truly benefiting from them. He is then like a donkey carrying books. Otherwise, why did he not benefit from them in following the truth that he believed in deep in his heart, and preferred to side with paganism represented by his relatives whom he mourned and glorified when they fell while fighting under its banner against monotheism? He went further and tore his pockets for them and cried and cut off the nose of his camel as the ignorant people of the pre-Islamic era used to do, according to what was mentioned in the books of biography and literary history (Dr. Jawad Ali/ Al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al-Arab Qabl al-Islam/ 6/ 479), and he is the one who has always been annoying us before by talking about the Hanafi school? Let us compare this position of his with the position of the Prophet (peace be upon him) when Wahshi, the killer of his beloved uncle and foster brother Hamza ibn Abdul Muttalib,

converted to Islam, as well as Hind, the liver eater and mastermind of his tragic murder (may Allah be pleased with him). The Prophet accepted them into his religion as if nothing had happened, despite the deep wound that the death of the Master of Martyrs left in his heart. This was in accordance with his great principle that "Islam wipes out what came before it."

Or why did he not call for what he believed in (according to what we read in the poetry attributed to him), even in the narrowest circles among his people in Taif only, since claiming prophethood was so easy as Muhammad did, who was not a reader or writer like him? Look and compare, and you will see the difference between prophethood and envy that eats away at the heart of its possessor, never letting him enjoy his life!


The second point we would like to stop at is the Prophet's trip to Taif when he felt that Mecca was strangely resistant to his call, except for the few who embraced his call despite the severe oppression, hardship and continuous harm. He thought that Taif might be more receptive to the new religion, but unfortunately its people were no better off than his people in Mecca. I wonder if Umayya had preceded the Quran in addressing the topics we read in that book, often using the same words and phrases, and then Muhammad took some of his Quranic verses from his poetry, would he have even thought of traveling to that poet's country, exposing himself to ridicule and accusation from its people, instead of having them embrace him and convert to his religion?

He would then be "like someone who seeks refuge from the frying pan in the fire", as the Arab proverb says, or like someone who "came to apply kohl to her eyes and blinded them", as the popular proverb goes! The Messenger was never a person who would commit such a strange and foolish act. In fact, none of his worst enemies ever accused him of anything like that! Then let us suppose after this that he committed this foolish act (and I seek forgiveness from God Almighty for this expression which I made in order to be extremely generous with the “cattle” who have hearts but do not reason with them, and have eyes but do not see with them, and have ears but do not hear with them!),

how did the sectarians miss the point and not confront him and defeat him with this theft which was enough to break the back of the call he had brought instead of tempting their boys, slaves and fools to chase him with stones in the streets of the city until they expelled him from it, violating with their brutal behavior what is required by the established Arab traditions that require honoring the visiting guest, and they forced him to seek refuge in the orchard of Utbah and Shaybah, sons of Rabi’ah, where he met their servant Addas, who offered him a bunch of grapes to sustain him and relieve his fatigue, then he approached him with love and reverence when he saw him mentioning God before eating and learned something of his religion as is known to readers of the Prophet’s biography?


Then there is the arrival of Umayya to the Prophet and his praise of him in a poem in which he acknowledges his mission, commends him, and believes in him. It seems that this was due to the influence of the questions that were certainly directed to him by those around him, as the question must have arisen in their minds about the reason, I wonder, that prevented him from believing in Muhammad since he repeats almost what he says and includes in his poetry some of what is stated in the Qur’an! I say this despite the fact that I have some belief in the authenticity of this poem for the reasons I will mention immediately. However, I said it on the condition I set when I showed that in order to accept Umayya’s poetry, which resembles the Holy Qur’an, we must also accept the events that accompanied it as reported in the narrations. In any case, here I am, quoting most of the verses of the poem first, and then we will examine them:

Praise and thanks be to You, Lord of the worlds. You are the King and the Judge.
Follow the religion of your Lord until you meet Him. And avoid desire and arrogance.
Muhammad, He sent him with guidance. So he lived richly and was not deprived of
a gift from Allah which you gave him. Allah singled him out for the people of the Sacred Sanctuary,
and they knew that he was the best of them. And in their house of generosity and kindness
is a prophet of guidance, truthful and good. Merciful, compassionate in maintaining family ties
. With him, Allah sealed those before him and after him from the prophets who sealed.
He dies as those who have passed away died. He will be returned to Allah, the Creator of souls
, with the prophets in the gardens of solitude. They are its people
, except for the oath. He sanctified in us all the love of prayer. And He taught the writing of the pen,
a book from Allah that we may read. So whoever transgresses it, then his footsteps are sinful.

(Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt - His Life and Poetry by Bahjat Abd al-Ghafur al-Hadithi/ 260-264)

Dr. Jawad Ali rejected this poem on the basis that the strong faith it contains in the Prophet and his religion contradicts what we know of Umayyah’s hesitation regarding Islam and the lack of deep faith in his heart, and that it refers to the death of the Prophet, which did not occur until after Umayyah’s death first (al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al-Arab Qabl al-Islam/ 6/ 497- 498). However, Bahjat al-Hadithi does not doubt the poem; rather, he sees it as representing one of the dangers that plagued Umayyah. It is known that he did not disbelieve in the Prophet out of denial, but rather out of envy, as he believed in what he brought in his heart, and he even intended to actually declare his conversion to Islam.

Also, al-Antaki, who lived in the third century AH, confirmed that it is present in his poetry and understood by those who have experience with it (Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt/ 78- 79). In fact, the last argument is almost The only obstacle that prevents me from confirming the falsity of this poem, despite what it contains that defies logic, is that it speaks of the conclusion of prophethood with Muhammad, peace be upon him, an issue that had not yet been raised, because the poem must have preceded the Battle of Badr, at the latest, after which Umayya made up his mind, ripped his pockets, hamstrung his camel, and finally retracted his conversion to Islam. Meanwhile, the reference to Muhammad’s prophethood being the final prophethood was mentioned in Surat Al-Ahzab, which was revealed a long time later, as is well known.

The mention of the Prophet's death in the poem does not necessarily mean that he actually died, as the context suggests this. It also suggests that he will die like all other human beings, as stated in the verse: "Indeed, you will die, and indeed, they will die" (Az-Zumar 30). The verb indicating death in the poem is in the present tense, not the past tense, as the reader will have noticed. This is despite the fact that mentioning death itself in this context is very strange and inconsistent with the requirements of praise.

Furthermore, describing the Prophet as "Most Merciful and Most Kind" echoes his description in the Qur'an in the penultimate verse of Surat At-Tawbah with these two attributes, although they appear in the two poems in the opposite order in the surah. The verse in question dates back to a later period than the poem was composed in. The poem also echoes the words of the Messenger of God in the hadith of Abu Hurairah: "If three of a Muslim's children die, he will not enter Hellfire unless he fulfills his oath." The intended meaning is a reference to the Almighty's words in verse 71 of Surah Maryam: "There is not one of you but will pass over it. This is a decree which must be decreed by your Lord." It is well known that Abu Hurairah converted to Islam in Medina in the seventh year of the Hijra, that is, years after Umayya composed his poem. So how could Umayya have been influenced by such a hadith, which was only composed a few years later?

Here, as the reader will notice, I am assuming that the poem was influenced by the Qur'an, not the other way around, since Umayya composed it in praise of the Prophet and in belief in his message. This means that he did not see any trace of his poetry in the Qur'an, otherwise he would not have thought of praising him, peace be upon him, at all, let alone satirizing and exposing him. Then there are flaws in the system that a pre-Islamic poet would not normally fall into: both the words “arsalahu” and “al-anbiya” in the poem have a hamza, which creates a disturbance in the music of the two couplets in which the two words appear, unless we delete the two hamzas as I did here, then we immediately feel that we are dealing with Sufi Islamic poetry, which makes it difficult for it to belong to the Umayyad era or even the beginnings of the Abbasid era.

But could this have escaped Ibn Dawud al-Antaki? That is the dilemma. However, if we bear in mind, on the other hand, that the major literary historians and critics of that period—the scholars preoccupied with the issue of plagiarism in pre-Islamic and contemporary poetry, such as Ibn Salam, Ibn Qutaybah, al-Jahiz, Abu al-Faraj, and Ibn Hisham—did not attribute any of this poetry to Umayya, we would find that it is not an intractable dilemma. Whatever the case, as I said, whoever among us wants to accept the attribution of the poems under study to Umayya must also accept the events accompanying them in the narratives she has provided us.


Among the narrations about the Prophet and Umayyah is the meeting that took place between him (peace and blessings be upon him) and Fari'ah, the poet's sister, when she came to him upon his entry into Taif in the ninth year of the Hijrah. She told him the story of her brother and recited some of his poetry to him upon his request. He (peace and blessings be upon him) responded by saying: "O Fari'ah, your brother's example is like that of someone to whom Allah gives His signs, but he withdraws from them." (Ibn Hajar/Al-Isabah fi Ma'rifat Al-Sahaba/Mustafa Muhammad Press/Cairo/1939/4/363, and Al-Isti'ab fi Ma'rifat Al-Ashab/Mustafa Muhammad Press/Cairo/1939/4/379).

Is it conceivable that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would seek to open the case of Umayyah and utter such a scathing word, within earshot of his sister, at a time when the people of Taif were most affected, a moment of defeat and humiliation, if he had derived any of his Qur'anic verses from the man's poetry? In this case, it is like someone extending his hand into a hole of snakes and scorpions, exposing himself to the danger of revelational destruction for no reason. The intelligence of Muhammad, peace be upon him, would not miss the danger that awaited him and proceed to act with such recklessness! The same can be said about his position on Al-Sharid ibn Al-Samit. Why would he, peace be upon him, encourage him to continue reciting poetry that would expose his claim if Umayyah had actually composed it before the Qur’an and derived his Qur’an from it? Rather, why would Suwayd recite Umayyah’s poetry in front of him at all if it was identical to the Qur’an to the extent that it was derived from it? Indeed, how did he not notice this similarity and why did his conscience not at least swell with doubts and obsessions?

Let us assume after all of this that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had committed this wrong action in both cases. How come the other party did not issue anything that hinted at the precedence of Umayyad poetry over the Qur’an, or even at the mere similarity between the two texts, even if it was a slip of the tongue?


Among the Thaqifis, other than Far’ah, the sister of our poet, is Kinanah ibn Abd Yalil, who was the chief of Thaqif at the time. He joined forces with Abu Amir the monk, the arch enemy of Islam, in conspiring against the new religion and its founder. They left no stone unturned to achieve this goal, even going to Caesar to seek his help against Islam. When they failed, Abu Amir remained in Syria, and Ibn Abd Yalil returned after wandering here and there and declared his conversion to Islam.

It is said that he was among the apostates, but then returned to Islam once again. The question that comes to mind, if the Messenger had taken something from Umayyah's poetry, is: How could someone like Kinanah have kept quiet and not use this matter as a weapon to direct at the heart of Islam in a decisive manner, thus relieving himself, his people, and all the Arabs of this calamity that was disturbing and disturbing them, instead of attacking the horizons and seeking help from those who were equal to them and those who were not? Isn't this what logic should have dictated to such a tribal leader? But he did not do it. So what does this indicate? Is it conceivable that he would have such a decisive weapon in his hand and not think of using it, despite the lengths he had fought against Islam and the frequency with which he conspired against it? (Ibn Hajar/ Al-Isabah fi Ma'rifat Al-Sahaba/ 2/496, and 3/305).


Urwah ibn Mas'ud Al-Thaqafi had embraced Islam before his people, and out of his love for them, he wanted Allah to guide them through him. He asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for permission to go to them and invite them to embrace the religion of monotheism. However, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) warned him that they would kill him. However, he could not imagine that they would oppose him and refuse to see him, believing that they loved him and honored him greatly. So, he asked for permission again, while the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) warned him. Then, he was given permission a third time to go to them and meet the fate that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had tried to spare him. As soon as he began to invite them to Islam, they gathered around him from every side and shot him with arrows, killing him, may Allah be pleased with him (Abu Na'im Al-Isfahani/Dala'il Al-Nubuwwah/2nd ed./Hyderabad, Deccan/1950/467).

Even if the Messenger had taken his Quran from Umayyah ibn al-Ta'if, whose resistance to Islam had lasted a long time, would Urwa have embraced his religion so simply, opposing his people? Indeed, would the Messenger have been pleased that this impulsive person, who did not think about the consequences, should go to them, knowing that the first response they would give him is: Have you forgotten that the Messenger, whose religion you are calling us to believe in, is nothing but a thief of our poet's poetry, who took it and claimed it was the Quran revealed to him from heaven? Even if neither of them had considered that outcome, which the mind could not have turned to anything else, would Thaqeef have let that golden opportunity pass without mocking Urwa's negligence and enthusiasm for a religion based on plagiarizing poetic texts from other poets and claiming that it was a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds?

There is also one of the famous Thaqafis, the poet Abu Mahjan, who was addicted to drinking, and he oscillated between his obsessive love for alcohol and his religious scruples, although love had the upper hand in the beginning of his affair, so much so that he was repeatedly punished for it, and Omar exiled him to one of the islands... until the Battle of Al-Qadisiyyah came, and his story is well-known, as he was at that time in chains in the house of Saad bin Abi Waqqas (the leader of the Muslims in that battle) because of alcohol, waiting for the punishment to be carried out on him. He began to insist on Saad’s wife, behind her husband’s back, to untie him so that he could participate in jihad in the way of God, and he had a covenant with God that he would return of his own accord after the battle and put his feet in the chains again, until he succeeded in convincing her, so she released him, so he fought and performed well in the war, and the Muslims were victorious. He kept his word and put his feet in the chains, then announced his final repentance for the mother of all evils after Saad expressed his admiration for him and promised him that he would never punish him, as he declared, saying that he could now give it up without fear. From anyone saying that he abandoned it for fear of punishment. His collection of poems is still filled with poems in which he praises the daughter of generosity, rebelling against its prohibition in the religion of Muhammad.

In fact, he was one of those who defended Taif during the Muslim siege following the conquest of Mecca, and his arrow hit a son of Abu Bakr (Al-Zarkali/ Al-A'lam/ 3rd ed./ 5/ 243; The Islamic Encyclopedia/ Arabic translation/ 2/ 597- 598; The Poet's Collection; and Bahjat Abd Al-Ghafur Al-Hadithi/ Umayyah ibn Abi Al-Salt/ 42- 43). The question here also: How did such a poet not mention the Prophet's use of the poetry of a member of his tribe, even during a fit of his debauchery and rebellion against Islam's strict prohibition of the mother of all evils, or in his poetry before he converted to Islam?

Then we also have from the Thaqafiyyin, Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, who was a teacher of the Qur’an at the beginning of his life, like his father, not seeking money, but rather seeking reward from God. Then he later became one of the great workers of the Umayyads.

He was the one who introduced more perfection and precision to the Arabic writing system, as he entrusted Nasr ibn Asim with the task of diacritical marks, i.e., placing dots to distinguish between similar letters such as bā', tā', thā', jīm, hā', and khā'... in order to achieve greater precision and ease in reading the Qur'an, which some scholars claim was borrowed in some places from Umayyad poetry. Despite all that has been said about his harshness during his governorship of Iraq, he was a regular reader of the Qur'an. He also encouraged its memorization by every means possible and brought its memorizers close to him (Ahmad Sidqi al-'Amad/ al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi - His Life and Political Views/ Dar al-Thaqafa/ Beirut/ 1975/ 86-87, 96, 474, 477-478, and Hazza ibn 'Eid al-Shammari/ al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi - A Civilized Face in the History of Islam/ Dar Umayya/ Riyadh/ 44).

Now, aren't we entitled to ask: What made al-Hajjaj so enthusiastic about Muhammad's religion if there was even a shred of doubt surrounding the source of this book, especially since the source in this case could be nothing other than the poetry of the son of the tribe to which he himself belonged? No, he wasn't just a son of his tribe, but he was also the cousin of his fourth maternal grandfather: Mu'tab ibn Malik (see his lineage in "Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi - A Civilized Face in the History of Islam" by Hazza ibn Eid al-Shammari/15).

Let no one think that Umayyad poetry didn't interest al-Hajjaj because he was preoccupied with politics and related matters, as he is reported to have said: "People who knew Umayyad poetry have gone, and so has the language been lost" (Dr. Jawad Ali/Al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al-Arab Qabl al-Islam/6/483), meaning that poetic and literary texts are lost with the passing of those who memorize them. Here is a very important point, which is that Umayya’s poetry was lost, at the very least, a large part of it before Hajjaj. So how did all this poetry that resembles the Qur’an reach us if one of the closest people to it by blood relationship complained about its loss in this way?

And most important of all, indicative of what we want, is that the issue raised by the ignorant, empty missionaries and those who follow them from the sons of Muslims, whose hearts, minds and eyes God has sealed, who do not think or listen except to every malicious person who wants to destroy them and their nation, is nothing more than a storm in a threshing floor, that Al-Fari’ah, the sister of Umayyah, and his sons Al-Qasim, Umayyah, Rabi’ah and Wahb, entered Islam with all of Thaqeef, and Al-Qasim, Umayyah and Rabi’ah used to write poetry, and no word has been transmitted from any of them or from anyone else who was related by blood to Umayyah that even hints that the Messenger could (only could) have benefited from the poetry of that poet in any way.

Never mind that their mere conversion to Islam is in itself proof of their denial of their father and their allegiance to Muhammad, which refutes the rantings of idiots burning with hatred for Muhammad's religion, that the Qur'an is in some aspects a borrowing from the poetry of the Mutanafid of Taif. Many Arabs apostatized after his death, peace and blessings be upon him, and each tribe had its own ridiculous excuses with which to try to justify this apostasy, but we have never heard of any of those who apostatized bringing up this subject. In fact, the Thaqeef tribe even considered apostasy, had it not been for Uthman ibn al-'As opposing them to embark on such an inappropriate act. They then came to their senses and never returned to their faith. In fact, many of them fought the apostates with all sincerity.

Here too, we do not hear a single groan about Muhammad's alleged benefit from Umayya's poetry! Not only that, but, as Dr. Jawad Ali points out (in his book "Al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al-Arab Qabl al-Islam"/6/493), there is John of Damascus, for example, who was one of the first Christians to write attacking Islam, and he was a contemporary of the Umayyad dynasty. If this suspicion had any shadow of truth, however slight, would this fanatical monk against Islam, who wanted to destroy it over the heads of his companions and prove by all means that Muhammad was not a true prophet, have let this precious opportunity slip and remained silent, not using this ready-made and certainly winning card?

Thus, the matter has been exposed in its true light: neither Umayya, nor any of his sons, relatives, tribe, nor even the Arabs, nor even the Christians and Jews who lived during the time of the Prophet or came shortly after him, ever raised this issue in any way. Don't we then have the right to describe whoever is bringing up this topic now as vulgar and impudent?

That would be tantamount to filing a lawsuit without any legal standing, rather, by a person who has no authority from any of the concerned parties, despite the fact that all the circumstances would have prompted these concerned parties to speak out if these allegations had any basis! The bottom line is that we have only two options in this matter: either we say that the attribution of these poems to Umayyah is false, or we say that he composed them in imitation of what is stated in the Qur'an.

However, Dr. Jawad Ali rejects the second possibility and sees only one possibility: the falsity of the poems attributed to Umayyah. Among the things he relied on in this opinion is that the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not accuse Umayyah of plagiarizing from him (Al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al-Arab Qabl al-Islam/6/491).

Although I tend toward the professor's opinion, I cannot reject the other opinion 100% due to the lack of conclusive evidence for its validity, and in order not to leave an opportunity for any blabbering person who wants to attack the Quran and the Messenger, I had to close this loophole. Hence, I respond to the argument presented by Dr. Jawad by saying that the Prophet, peace be upon him, is greater than to stop at these things, especially since the Quran was revealed to him so that people could benefit from it, whatever the type of benefit, not for him to boast about it over them. Moreover, the Quran does not belong to the Messenger, but rather it is the Book of God. So what could the Messenger have said to Umayyah in this situation, especially if we know that Umayyah did not confront him but contented himself with evasion?

Even this aversion was not complete, as some narrations state that he once visited him and listened to him recite Surah Yasin, and that he testified to the truth of his words. Upon his return from Syria, he made his way to Medina to announce his conversion to the religion of Muhammad, had it not been for the polytheists' incitement of him by stirring up their resentment against the Prophet due to the killing of some of his relatives at the hands of the Muslims at Badr, as stated in Ibn Hajar's Al-Isabah, Al-Tabarsi's Majma' Al-Bayan, and others (Dr. Jawad Ali/Al-Mufassal fi Tarikh Al-Arab Qabl Al-Islam/6/486).

But if the Prophet had to respond to him despite all of this, is not what was narrated from him, may God bless him and grant him peace, when he said about him: "His hair believed, but his heart disbelieved" or "His tongue believed, but his heart disbelieved" (Sahih Muslim, Book of Poetry. Dr. Jawad himself included this in Al-Mufassal fi Tarikh Al-Arab Qabl Al-Islam/485) sufficient? The meaning of “his hair or tongue believed” is that he would take what was stated in the Qur’an and repeat it in his poetry as if he were a believer in it, but his envy of him, peace be upon him, prevented him from announcing that officially and finally, and this is the meaning of the disbelief of his heart.

The third possibility, proposed by some Orientalists, such as the German Orientalist Scholz, publisher of the Diwan of Umayya, that the Prophet and Umayya both drew from a third, common source, is a possibility that has no legs to walk on. Where is that common source? Why did it not appear throughout all those centuries? How did each of them fall into it, given the great spatial and psychological distance between them? And why are they alone in particular, without all the Arabs, indeed without the entire world?