The Siege of Banu Hashim: A Trial of Faith and Tribal Solidarity

The Siege of Banu Hashim in Shi‘b Abi Talib: Historical Account and Critical Analysis

Background of the Event​

As Islam continued to spread despite severe persecution by the Quraysh, they became increasingly anxious. The migration to Abyssinia (Habashah) had already taken place, and the Christian king there granted protection to the Muslims. Consequently, the Quraysh resolved to isolate the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Banu Hashim clan, subjecting them to severe economic and social boycott in hopes of crushing the Islamic mission.

They drafted an agreement stipulating that:

• No one would marry into the Banu Hashim.
• No one would buy or sell anything to or from them.
• No one would associate or interact with them.
• No food or supplies would be allowed into their area.

This pact was written in Muharram of the seventh year of Prophethood and was hung upon the walls of the Ka‘bah. Mansur ibn ‘Ikrimah was the scribe who documented it.

Life During the Boycott​

Forced into exile, Abu Talib took the entire Banu Hashim clan into the valley known as Shi‘b Abi Talib, where they remained under siege for three years.

This was a period of extreme hardship:

• They were reduced to eating leaves.
• Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas narrated:
  
  “We would survive by chewing on leaves of the tree of Talhah. Our lips became like camel skin.”
  “Once I found a dry hide, washed it, roasted it, crushed it, mixed it with water, and consumed it.”
  

Despite these horrific conditions, those who had accepted Islam remained steadfast. Importantly, the boycott was not limited to Muslims—even non-Muslim members of Banu Hashim and allied clans were included except Abu Lahab.


The Prophet ﷺ later rewarded the Banu Muttalib and Banu Nawfal with a share from the spoils of war because of their support during the boycott. In contrast, Banu ‘Abd Shams received nothing. When ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, a descendant of ‘Abd Shams, inquired about this, the Prophet ﷺ explained that his clan had not supported him during the boycott. This is recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

Why Wasn’t the Prophet Physically Harmed?​

In pre-Islamic Arabia, tribal solidarity was extremely strong. An attack on one member of a clan could trigger generations of warfare. That is why no individual from Quraysh dared physically harm the Prophet ﷺ, as he belonged to the respected Banu Hashim. Likewise, ‘Ali رضي الله عنه, under the protection of his clan, was also never physically attacked, and no narration exists that shows otherwise during the Makkan period.

Accounts of Kindness​

There were some who, out of sympathy, secretly helped the besieged:

• Ḥakīm ibn Ḥizām, a nephew of Khadījah رضي الله عنها, once tried to send some wheat through his slave.
• Abu Jahl attempted to intercept it.
• However, Abu al-Bukhturī, a non-Muslim, intervened and defended the delivery, arguing that no one should be stopped from helping his own aunt.
  

How Did the Boycott End?​

Now the critical question: how did this boycott finally end?


There are two types of narratives:

❖ Narrative of the Insect-Eaten Scroll​

Some early historians such as Ibn Isḥāq, Ibn Sa‘d, al-Bayhaqī, and Abū Nu‘aym reported that:

• Allah sent termites that ate away the contents of the document hung in the Ka‘bah.
• According to one version, only the name of Allah remained, and the rest was eaten.
• Another version says the name of Allah was eaten, but the boycott terms remained.
• The Prophet ﷺ informed Abu Ṭālib through revelation.
• When the Quraysh examined the parchment, they found it exactly as the Prophet ﷺ had described, which led to the termination of the pact.

❖ Hadith Authentication and Historical Reliability​

Shaykh Sayyid Sulaymān Nadwī criticized this narrative, stating:

• Ibn Isḥāq’s account is unsourced (mursal).
• The remaining narrations are either through al-Wāqidī or Ibn Luhay‘ah, both of whom are considered weak narrators.
• Even the stronger chain found in al-Bayhaqī, from Mūsā ibn ‘Uqbah through al-Zuhrī, stops at Zuhrī and does not reach any Companion, making it a mursal narration.
• In Hadith methodology, a narration that misses two links is called mu‘ḍal, which is among the weakest forms of hadith.

Regarding al-Zuhrī, he was a reliable scholar, but his mursal narrations are not accepted unless corroborated by other evidence.

❖ About the Narrators: Reliability Concerns​

Ibn Luhay‘ah (Abdullah):

• Weak narrator.
• Accused of fabricating chains and attributing weak narrations to reliable authorities.
• Had his manuscripts burned, which he later used as an excuse for errors and inconsistencies.
• Leading scholars like Yaḥyá ibn Ma‘īn, al-Nasā’ī, and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal declared him unreliable.

Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayd al-Rāzī:

• Declared a liar and fabricator by several hadith critics.
• His student was al-Ṭabarī, but despite this association, he was rejected by other scholars.
• Known to forge isnāds and manipulate reports.

❖ Real Events Leading to the Boycott's End​

According to authentic historical sources such as Ibn Hishām, al-Ṭabarī, and Ibn Sa‘d:

• A group of sympathetic Quraysh leaders became uneasy with the injustice.
• Hishām ibn ‘Āmir, a relative of the Prophet ﷺ, clandestinely delivered food to the valley.
• He approached Zuhair ibn Abī Umayyah, the Prophet’s cousin, and persuaded him to help end the pact.
• Together, they enlisted Muṭ‘im ibn ‘Adī, Abū al-Bukhturī, and Zam‘ah ibn al-Aswad.
• They all confronted the Quraysh in the Ḥaram, and Zuhair publicly denounced the boycott.
• Abū Jahl opposed, but Zam‘ah and others refuted him.
• The document was torn, and the boycott was lifted.
• This event is recorded by Ibn Sa‘d as occurring in the 10th year of Prophethood.
  

Conclusion​

The siege of Banu Hāshim in Shi‘b Abī Ṭālib was a significant trial in early Islamic history, showcasing the tribal solidarity, resilience of the Muslims, and the injustice of the Quraysh. While legendary accounts such as the insect-eaten scroll exist, their chains of narration are weak or fabricated, and they fail to meet hadith authenticity criteria.

The real causes behind the boycott's termination were humanitarian sympathy and the bold moral stance taken by some noble Quraysh figures—not miraculous or supernatural events.