[577] Amru is, as a matter of course, unpopular with the Abbasside historians, who make the most of his undoubted unscrupulousness and levity both in word and action. His last words are said to have been the humble confession that his life had been one of rebellion against the Lord, and an earnest prayer for pardon.
[578] See above, p. 264.
[579] The subject was much canvassed by all parties. Prior to Islam, the law of marriage and legitimacy was lax; and a loose woman might, as in the present case, ascribe the paternity of her child to anyone prepared to admit the same; and (adds Ibn al Athîr) had Muâvia taken up this ground, there could have been no valid objection to it. But he did more; he proceeded to take the evidence of the owner of the slave-girl, as if the case had been one of Mahometan law, under which the paternity would not have been admitted, and the case, in fact, would have been held to be one of whoredom, demanding the punishment of both parties. Tradition varies as to whether Abu Sofiân himself ever acknowledged the paternity.
After Muâvia had recognised him as his brother, Ziâd proposed to go on pilgrimage to Mecca and Medîna. His brother, Abu Bakra (who, offended at his tergiversation in the adulterous charge against Moghîra, had never spoken to him since) sent a message to dissuade him. ‘Thou wilt meet Omm Habîba,’ he said, ‘if thou wilt go on pilgrimage. Now, if she receive thee as her brother, that will be regarded as a slight upon the memory of the Prophet; if otherwise, it will be a slight upon thyself.’ So Ziâd thought better of it, and gave up the design.
Again, Ziâd, wishing to extract an acknowledgment of his birth from Ayesha, addressed a letter to her in which he subscribed himself, Ziâd son of Abu Sofiân; to which she replied, without committing herself, merely thus, ‘To my dear son, Ziâd.’ On the same ground, Abbasside writers ordinarily name him without a patronymic, as, Ziâd ibn Abîhi, i.e. ‘Ziâd, son of his father.’ He is also called after his mother, ‘Ziâd ibn Sommeyya.’
[580] We are told that the same attempt, followed by similar prodigies, was made by the Caliph Abd al Malik, and also by Welîd, &c.; in fact, it was an impious act, of a kind which Abbasside tradition is rather fond of attributing to the Omeyyad Caliphs. We are told that Mahomet, anticipating the sacrilege, is said to have threatened hell-fire against any who would venture to remove the pulpit. This Abu Horeira, who came to Medîna, A.H. 7, and from whom we have so many traditions, died in A.H. 57 or 59.
[581] Sád (the father of Cays) was the only recusant.
[582] The project, indeed, has been attributed entirely to Moghîra. The tradition runs thus: Moghîra was afraid that Muâvia intended to supersede him as Governor of Kûfa by the promotion of Ziâd to the post; and so, by suggesting the nomination of Yezîd, and promising to gain over the city of Kûfa to it, he hoped to secure his continued hold of the city, as being necessary to the success of the scheme. But the tradition bears strong marks of coming through an Abbasside medium.
[583] When Merwân, governor of the city, placed the matter before the men of Medîna, he was at first violently opposed. Amongst others, Abd al Rahmân, son of Abu Bekr, said, ‘This thing is naught but a fraud and a deception. In place of the election, the right to which vesteth in this city, ye will now make the succession like unto that of the Greeks and Romans—where one Heraclius succeedeth another Heraclius.’ On this, Muâvia quoted from the Corân: ‘Say not unto your parents, Fie on you! neither reproach them’ (Sura xvii. 24); signifying, it may be, that the very practice of nomination, now opposed, had been introduced by Abu Bekr himself in appointing Omar.
Abdallah son of Omar is said to have been gained over by the gift of ten thousand golden pieces.