Some Gujarati Muslim Families and their [Potential] Links to Arab Tribes

Genealogy, or the knowledge of tribes and ancestries, is a neglected but important branch of knowledge. It remains the preserve of a select few: family chiefs, village elders and tribal sages.  The Arabs had a knack for it because their life was shaped by tribalism, they were defined by their tribe and its relations with others.  Then there was the additional use of poetry. Each tribe had its share of bards and collection of poetry, standing the test of time and transmitted through generations, members would have memorised verses and odes in infancy and could produce them by rote at any given instance; poetry celebrating the legend of their tribe and partner tribes, all whilst versifying abuse and insults about their rival and opponent tribes. For this, in addition to data of historical events, they required intricate knowledge of their ancestry and the ancestry of others.

“O Mankind, We have created you from a male and female, and made you nations and tribes so that you may come to know one another. 

 Truly, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the most God-fearing among you.  

Truly God is the All-Knower, All-Aware.” (49:13)

For Muslims, apart from the fact that God speaks about creating humans with different complexions, ethnicities and languages, “so that you may come to know one another”, the importance of genealogy is compounded by hadiths such as, “whoever claims to have come from other than his father, and associates his name with other than his master (slaves associated with masters in the olden days), then upon him is Allah’s curse, the curse of the angels and all people. Allah will not accept any of his deeds.”

(Commentators interpret sarfan wa la ‘adla, which I have conveniently translated as “deeds” here, as “repentance and worship.” So according to this interpretation, such a person's repentance or worship will not be accepted. God forbid.)

There are several variants to this report. “It is kufr”, “Heaven is forbidden for such a person” and “he is in Hell” are all alternate expressions recorded in texts, which allude to the same point and emphasise the severity of this “sin”.

The hadith is talking about identity theft, someone claiming to be something or someone they are not.  This creates a host of problems, not least because discarding one’s tribal association for another is considered an affront to one’s own linage, it creates complications in inheritance laws, burial rites, marital regulations et cetera. Of late some have made a literalist reading of the hadith and have understood it to mean a wife is not allowed to take her husband’s surname. In my understanding of the custom, at least my custom and the ones under my observation, none of the above problems occur when a bride adds the groom’s family surname to hers. Allah knows best.

In light of the above, it should not come as a surprise then if we are to learn the Companions were masters of this knowledge. Abu Bakr, for example, was the most knowledgeable personage of the Quraysh family tree in his time.  He was equally well-versed in the genealogy of all Arabs and was considered an authority.  Similarly, the Companions Jubayr ibn Mut’im, Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Aqil ibn Abi Talib were distinguished experts amongst their peers in this field.

Gujaratis are no different in this regard. I always marvel at how my granddad, hafizahullah, is able to draw connections between individuals out of thin air — “X person’s grandmother’s aunt was married to Y person’s granddad’s cousin”, “my great great granddad and X’s great granddad were brothers!”  I’m sure Gujaratis who are reading this post will know exactly what I’m talking about, as they will have encountered someone likewise in their clan. An outsider can be mistaken to associate such the intricate knowledge with incest, but incest it is NOT.  If anything, it demonstrates the importance and significance of genealogy amongst them and their culture.

What I reproduce here is an interesting and much sought-after chart found within an Urdu work titled, muqaddimah tarikh-i gujarat (lit. prolegomenon to the history of Gujarat), penned by the late Mol Ayyub Surti of Batley (d. 2012) rahmatullahi ‘alahyhi, and which was published in 1991.  I’m aware the chart was published separately too, however, I have no additional information about it apart from Bury Dar al-‘Ulum having something to do with it (as we shall see).

The chart is placed under the heading, “Arab tribes in Gujarat from the first century AH in light of new research” (jadid tahqiqat ki roshni mein pehli sadi hijri se qaba’il-i arabiyya gujarat hindustan mein). The chart bears a title in Arabic which has been translated into Urdu as, “Arab Tribes from the 1^st century AH in Gujarat (India)” (Al-qaba’il al-‘arabiyyah min al-qurun al-ula fi gujarat al-hind). I find “early centuries” is a more appropriate translation of “al-qurun al-ula” than “the 1^st century”, unless the migration dates of the enlisted tribes can be ascertained to fall within the first century, i.e. each of tribe was on the shores of Gujarat by the end of the first century hijri. “Earlier centuries” in the Islamic parlance refers to the first three centuries. No biggie.

The chart is made up of five columns, one Gujarati, one English and three Arabic.  The Gujarati column (far left) is titled atak, which means tribe or family name. The English column, titled Surname, transliterates the Gujarati atak into English whilst the Arabic ism al-‘a’ilah (third from left and lit. “Family name”) transliterates the English/Gujarati into Arabic.  Thus, each family name is scribed in three languages: Gujarati, English and Arabic.  These are then associated with Arab tribes which form the remaining two columns, ‘nearest tribe’ and ‘furthest tribe’.

To be identified in terms of one’s immediate and broader tribes was and is quite common amongst Arabs.  I guess this is common amongst us too, we identify ourselves differently based on context. I’m European, British, English, Northerner, Lancastrian, a Blackburner and from Whalley Range.  All of these are identities on different levels and are relevant in their context. I do note, however, the identities in my example are geographical, which are common in the Torah. The Arabs do not identify themselves based on geographical locations (Hijazi, Makki, Madani, Ta’ifi), rarely have I noticed this if ever, they identify with tribes (Qurashi, Ansari, Thaqafi etc.).  In fact, the Caliph ‘Umar can be said to have criticised the practice.

He once stated, “learn your family tree and connect with your kin. Do not be like the Nabateans of [southern] Iraq (Sawad), whom when asked who they are, reply, ‘I am from such and such a village.’  For, by Allah, there may be something between a man and his brother, were he to realise what blood relation is between them it would prevent him from hurting his brother.” 

 It is accepted that all arabs are descendants of two progenitors: Adnan and Qahtan. Adnan is a descendant of Prophet Ismail s.o. Prophet Ibrahim who had settled in the Hijaz, his family inhabited north of the Arabian peninsula and scattered as far north as the holy lands of Palestine, whilst Qahtan is the ancestor of Southern Arabia, primarily what is now Southern KSA (Najran), Yemen, Oman, and parts of Africa (Habash).  The so-called “extinct Arabs”, of Sheba, ‘Ad, Thamud came from Qahtan. Allah knows best.

The chart contains editorial and typographical errors, as well as spelling which does not agree with conventional orthography. I have decided to keep them and provide corrections separately at the end.  Since transliteration is between three languages, there are some linguistic restrictions. For example, Arabic and English both do not have the Hindi-Urdu H, which is called the do chashmi ha and popularly referred to as the “love heart H” or the “paan shaped H”, as with the word Bharat (بھارت). This sound cannot be created in either Arabic or English. 

Despite this, there are some very definite errors. For example, Fays ibn ‘Umlaan (فيس بن عملان) is a corruption of Qays ibn ‘Aylan (قيس بن عيلان), more commonly referred to as Qays ‘Aylan (قيس عيلان).  The Gujarati Batha (બાથા) shows the H is a Hindi one, not possible to reproduce precisely in Arabic or English, yet there was no need to alter the sequence of the H and omit the elongated vowel A (alif madda) in the Arabic (بهته). The Arabic transliterates as Bhutta or Bhatta, not baathaa (باتها). Similarly, (બુલબુલ્યા) Bulbulya appears as Bulbul without the suffix (-ya) in the English transliteration and which becomes Babul (بابول) in Arabic.  The Arabic configuration seems more like a predictable shift than a flagrant error. 

Other peculiarities are more understandable and predictable due to the temperament of the languages. It is common for languages to appropriate foreign words into more recognisable forms. The N in Kahlan has been dropped in Gujarati altogether (કાહલા). The nature of the errors or disparity in transliteration makes it difficult to detect a transliteration pattern and predict what is the original source language and what is the target, i.e. Was the English and Arabic transliteration based on the Gujarati and was the Arabic made by looking at the English or Gujarati or both etc.?

In any case, where I have felt it necessary to highlight such errors or peculiarities I have sufficed by marking it with an asterisk, and adding a brief remark below the chart.  I have not highlighted every mistake, nor critically analysed every name as I intend to give the chart a closer inspection and a more thorough study at another time insha Allah. 

Mol Ayyub provides no reference for the chart apart from a vague “courtesy of Dar al-‘Ulum Bury” (min janib: dar al-ulum al-arabiyyah al-islamiyyah, holcombe, bury, england, UK). This barely suffices as a reference, let alone evidence. I have asked several individuals associated with the Bury seminary, some have claimed knowledge of the chart but nothing more.  None were able to give further details about its provenance.  Therefore, whilst I find the chart most intriguing I maintain a skeptical reserve towards it, and whilst I find the chart credible as a whole its finer details are questionable. This is not because I have substantial evidence to discredit it but because the anonymity of its author(s) does not allow me to assert its credibility.  The chart raises more questions than it provides answers.  It is valuable nonetheless and a great place to begin, not end.  

I would appreciate it if anyone with relevant information could assist.

The chart can be accessed from the link below:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4MVNCPh8z62T2VtbWVHQzVOSjg/view?usp=sharing

[alternative link]:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s42ml7xg6vls9qg/Gujarati%20Ansab.pdf?dl=0