'''Atassi''', also sometimes spelled Atasi, ([[Arabic]]: ‫ )األت ا سي‬is the name of a
prominent family of notables in [[Homs]], [[Syria]] dating back to the 16th century
AD.
== Background ==
Many Family members assumed prominent religious and political positions in
[[Ottoman]], French, and Independent [[Syria]]. Family traditions and documents tell
us that the name Al-Atassi evolved from the word "‫ " العطاسي‬meaning "the sneezer" in
Arabic which later changed to " ‫ "األطاسي‬then to Atassi. The family is of a HashemiteHusseini origin as is clear in many documented historical accounts from the Ottoman
era. The ancestor of the family had moved between Yemen, Hijaz and Turkey before
eventually establishing his presence in Homs sometime in the 16th century AD.
There are many family branches, but only two assumed new surnames: [[Al-Sayed
Suleiman]] and Majaj, whereas the other branches continue to have the "Atassi"
surname. The number of the family members had exceeded 2000 Atassis scattered
all over the world.
Religious authority as [[Mufti]]s of [[Homs]], along with large land holdings in
[[Homs]] formed the basis of the family's wealth and influence.
== Atassi Muftis of Homs ==
(Dates represent period served in that position)
1) Al-Shihab Ahmad Sham Al-Deen ibn Khalil Al-Atassi, the first. 1533-1596.
2) Mahmood ibn Ahmad Al-Atassi. Held position starting in 1596.
3)Ahmad ibn Mahmood Al-Atassi, the second. Held position until death in 1653.
4) Hasan ibn Mahmood Al-Atassi. Held postion starting in 1653.
5) Mohammad ibn Ahmad Al-Atassi, the first. Held position untill death in 1698.
6) Ali ibn Hasan Al-Atassi. Held position starting in 1703.
7) Abdul-Wahhab ibn Ali Al-Atassi. Mid 18th century, period not exactly knwon.
8) Burhan Al-Deen Ibraheem ibn Ali Al-Atassi. Late 18th century, period in Homs
not known.
9) Abdul-Sattar ibn Ibraheem Al-Atassi. 1805-1829.
10) Saeed ibn Abdul-Sattar Al-Atassi. 1830-1854.
11) Mohammad Abu- Al-Fath ibn Abdul Sattar Al-Atassi, the second. 1852-1882.
12) Mohammad Khaled ibn Mohammad Al-Atassi. 1885-1894.
13) Abdul-Lateef ibn Mohammad Al-Atassi. 1894-1914
14) Mohammad Taher ibn M. Khaled Al-Atassi. 1914-1940.
15) Mohammad Tawfeeq ibn Abdul-Lateef Al-Atassi. 1940-1965.
16) Badr Al-Deen ibn Mahmood Al-Atassi. 1965-1966.
17) Mohammad Tayyeb ibn Abdul-Fattah Al-Atassi. 1966-1984.
Other members served as religious scholars in other capacities such as Judges, Chief
Clerks, and Imams. One Mufti, Sayed Ibraheem Efendi Al-Atassi, also served as
Mufti of [[Tripoli]] in the late 18th century. [[Taher Al-Atassi]] served as the
supreme judge of [[Basrah]] of [[Iraq]], [[Nablus]] and [[Jerusalem]] in [[Palestine]]
in the late Ottoman period.
Although members of Atassi family were naturally involved in the politics of the city
of Homs by virtue of holding the Mufti position and by belonging to the class of
[[notables]] and Ashraf, it was not until the late 1800s that they started holding nonreligious governmental offices. Two scholars who held the position of [[Mufti]] also
held political offices: [[Khaled Al-Atassi]] (1837-1908), and his son, [[Taher AlAtassi]] (1860-1940). Sayed Khaled Efendi Al-Atassi was elected as a deputy of
[[Homs]] and [[Hama]] in 1876 to the first Parliament of the [[Ottoman Empire]]. In
1922, Sayed Taher Efendi was elected to the membership of the Council of the Syrian
Union as a representative of Homs in the state of [[Damascus]]. Other Atassis
followed suit.
Further influence through education was achieved by a tradition of sending the young
men of the family to be educated at the Imperial capital of Istanbul during the
Ottoman administration, and then to the [[Sorbonne]] and other European centers of
learning during the French Mandate.
== Atassi members elected to the parliament ==
(dates represent year elected)
1)
[[Khaled Al-Atassi]], elected to the Ottoman parliament, 1876.
2)
[[Hashem Al-Atassi]], 1919, 1928, 1932, 1936.
3)
Wasfi Beik Al-Atassi, 1919.
4)
Taher Efendi Al-Atassi, 1922.
5)
Mukarram Al-Atassi, 1936, 1946.
6)
Dr. Adnan Al-Atassi, 1943, 1947, 1954.
7)
Hilmi Al-atassi, 1943, 1946.
8)
[[Feidy Beik Al-Atassi]], 1947, 1949, 1954, 1961.
9)
Dr. Showqi Al-Atassi, elected to the parliament of the [[United Arab
Republic]], 1960.
10)
Ibtisam Al-Sayed Suleiman Al-Atassi, 2003.
== Atassi Mayors of Homs ==
1) Hasan Al-Atassi, late 1800s.
2) Najeeb Atassi, 1879.
3) Omar Beik Al-Atassi, 1912.
4) Mohammad Al-Atassi, 1920-1930.
5) Feidy Beik Al-Atassi, 1931-1945.
6) Mukarram Al-Atassi, 1950s.
7) Qasem Al-Atassi, 1954-1957.
Members of the family lead the national movement against the French mandate. The
power and prestige of the family reached an apex at the formation of the modern
Republic of Syria in 1936, when its second Head of State, [[Hashim al-Atassi]] was
elected president. Two out of the seven members of the constitutional assembly who
drafted the first constitution of [[Syria]] in 1919 included two prominent Atassis:
Wasfi Beik and Hashem Beik Al-Atassi. Two more scions, [[Luai al-Atassi]] and
[[Nureddin al-Atassi]], were in turn installed as heads of state in the 1960s. There
were also several magistrates, governors, ambassadors, heads of political parties,
military officers and other public officials in the ranks of the family throughout
Ottoman and modern times.
[[Category: Politics of Syria]]
[[Category: Surnames]]
'''Sayed Suleiman''' is a large branch of the well-known [[Atassi]] (Atasi) family of
[[Homs]], Syria. The family descends from Sayed Suleiman Chalabi son of Sayed
Abdullah Al-Atassi, a prominent religious figure in the 18th century and the head of
the Atsssi family of that time. The family belongs to the Hashemite-Husseini class, or
Ashraf, descendents of the [[prophet Mohammad]]. Islamic court Registers of
[[Homs]] show that Sayed Sueliman was a highly regarded figure, as evident by the
titles given to him in formal address by the court. He was married to Jalla Al-Khaleq
Al-Atassi, the daughter of his cousin, Ali Efendi Al-Atassi, the Grand Mufti of Homs.
He passed away in 1775 AD leaving one son, Sayed Saleh Atassi. It is estimated that
there are about 500-600 family members today in Homs and other places in the
Wrold. Some may still attach [[Atassi]] to their surname.
[[Image:Khaled_Atassi.jpg|thumb|200px|Grand Mufti of Homs]]
'''Khaled Efendi al-[[Atassi]]''' Al-Husseini ([[1837]] -[[October]], [[1908]]) ({{langar| ‫ )}}خالد األتاسي‬was a famous Syrian religious authority, scholar and political activist.
Born in [[Homs]] to the famous [[Atassi]] family in 1837, he went through the
traditional preparation for the position of [[Mufti]], a post his family filled for over
400 years. His father, Mohammad Efendi Al-Atassi was the [[Grand Mufti]] of
[[Homs]], and so was his uncle, Saeed Al-Atassi. Khaled Efendi studied under
famous Islamic scholars of his time in [[Homs]] and [[Damascus]]. In 1876 he was
elected as deputy of [[Homs]] and [[Hama]] in the parliament of the [[Ottoman
Empire]]. He was also given the post of Mudarres (teacher) in the Mosuqe of Khaled
ibn Al-Waleed in Homs, a post that was held by his family for generations. In 1861,
and while his father was still alive, Khaled Efendi assumed the position of the Mufti.
However, Islamic court registers of [[Homs]] later designate him as the Deputy-Mufti,
and his father as the Mufti. In 1882 the Grand Mufti of Homs, Mohammad Al-Atassi
passed away, but the Ottoman administration handed the Mufti position to sheikh
Hafez Al-Jindi Al-Abassi, who served as a Mufti till 1885. Khaled Efendi became the
Mufti of Homs in 1885 by an official decree, and was removed from his post in 1894,
to be filled by his bother, Abdu-Lateef Al-Atassi.
Khlaled Atassi was also a poet, and an author. He left several books in the topic of
Islamic jurisdiction. His most famous work was "Shrah Al-Majallah", which is an
interpretation of the Ottoman Islamic Law Code based on the [[Hanafi]] [[Fiqh]]
school. Atassi died in 1908 before finishing the book, but it was later finished by his
son [[Taher Al-Atassi]], also Mufti of Homs, and was published in 7 volumes.
Several of his sons and grandsons were prominent figures and assumed high offices in
Syria. His son [[Hashem Al-Atassi]] headed the struggle against the French mandate
and became the president of Syria several times. His son Taher Efendi took over the
post of Mufti of Homs, and was elected to the Council of the Syrian States Union in
1922. Several of his grandsons became ministers in the Syrian government and
deputies in the parliament.
== Naqabat Al Ashraf ==
Many Atassis Akcnoledge that Omar Najeeb AL-Omar mention of an Atassi Naquib
was a mistake the original text by Khankha does not provie for that. Also please
indicate what in particualr do you see as incoorect in my version. Furthermore, Amod
Al Nasab from Ali the first and beyound is lost, no link has been made yet to Amood
Nasab of Attas. The Ammod is available is avaialbe upto Ali the First. Please provide
for the missing link pass Ali. Let's keep it factual otherwise We will keep going back
and forth forever.
{{WP Syria |class=Stub |importance=Low}}
test
I am not sure how to engage in a discussion here....this is an attempt.
I have no problem going back and forth, neither do my cousins, if we have to defend
our heritage against someone who obviously has no right to make assumptions about
the family's origins, let alone would not reveal his identity or listen to reason.
Dear Sir,
Please let's not take it personal here. You can claim anything you want (true or fales)
on your family website. However on a Encyclopedic things have to be accurate and
has to present the truth or atleast common knowledge or different openions. so why
don't you do me a favour and stop this redicilous pitty attitude and approach this in a
historical / research manner. I thought i presented the facts based on evidence. and if
you have any suggestions to improve the quality of this post please let's work
together. Otherwise I am not interested in a pitty quarell.
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________
Friend,
I appreciate that this is an encyclopedia, but unfortunately, you are not treating it as
such. For us to work together there has to be mutual understanding of intentions and
goals. What you view as factual I may view as the opposite. You may not know
what constitutes proof of "sharaf" in Islamic law, and that is simply not my problem,
nor my family's. Please do not think that you are in any position to judge, nor am I in
any position to present any credentials or proofs to you. We did not ask for our
family to be added to this encyclopedia, and we definitely, did not add this topic
ourselves. So if you want to keep this section, you will have to listen! Unless you
start dealing with me as an equal, not as a defendant, this "quarrel" will not end. I'm
willing to cooperate with you, for it is my family, after all, about which you are
writing. But for me to help build this section you will have to be as accountable as I
am. If you ask me a question and expect an answer out of me, then you re bound to
also answer my questions, and so on. Till then, this will continue, unfortunately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear Sir,
I am going to start with few lines here, please point out if something is inaccurate and
would be ncie to see some logical evidence similar to those you have on your website.
Thanks
"Atassi is the name of a prominent family in Homs, Syria dating back to the 16th
century AD. Many Family members assumed prominent religious and political
positions in Ottoman, French, and Independent Syria. The name Al-Atassi evolved
from the word " ‫ "األطاسي‬then later and at times ‫ العطاسي‬which means "the sneaser" in
Arabic. A family member Suleiman Al-Atassi was refered to as "Al-Sayyed" in
realestate ottoman documents in the 18th century"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<blockquote>
(The name Al-Atassi evolved from the word " ‫ "األطاسي‬then later and at times ‫العطاسي‬
which means "the sneaser" in Arabic)
</blockquote>
This is in accurate. The evolution of this name went from ‫ عطاسي‬to ‫ أطاسي‬to ‫أتاسي‬.
This is dictated by
1)
simple logic.
2)
popular belief among family members as well as others, as handed down
generation to generation, and as written by their ancestors.
3)
documentation in the Islamic court of law during the Ottoman era.
(A family member Suleiman Al-Atassi was refered to as "Al-Sayyed" in realestate
ottoman documents in the 18th century")
This is inaccurate and too inclusive. This is to mean that only one person in the
family was labeld as "Sayyed". That is not true, as many before him and after him
were addressed by that title. There is no reason why only Suleiman is titled Sayed!
Not only that, but he was also labeld as "Fakhr Al-Sadat" and "Fakhr Al-Sadah AlAshraf", and "Khadem Sharee'at jaddihi Aleihi Assalatu wa Assalam" (The servant of
his grandfather's law, peace be upon him). There are others who were addressed in
similar ways. If you are willing to cooperate I can show you these documents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That's a good start. I looked into your website and saw some of the document. It
seemed to me ( and correct me if I was wrong) that the ‫ أطاسي‬is older as since
founder him self was called ‫أطاسي‬
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do have what you are asking for, but there are two problems with your approach:
1)
what if I didn't have these documents? Do you realize how difficult it is to
collect these old documents? Especially if we are talking the 10th Hijri century (16th17th AD)? It is next to impossible!
2)
You cannot create history based on this logic, meaning: what is older is
necessarily more accurate.
At any time while they were in Syria, our ancestors were called ‫ أطاسي‬,‫أتاسي‬, and
‫عطاسي‬
Here is an example. Ahmad the first (the founder) was called in all of his biographies
‫أطاسي‬, but in an old document dated in 984 (which pre-dates any of these biographies)
he was titled ‫أتاسي‬
Find it here:
http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Sheikh_Zein2.jpg
but in an even older document dating back to 979 hijri, ‫ عطاسي‬was used!
http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Zihrawi-4.jpg
So you can see the flaw in your logic. What if the former documents was a few years
earlier instead? Would you have concluded that ‫ أتاسي‬is older? This would be a very
erroneous assumption, as you have no idea what other documents were produced so
long ago and are now missing or not accessible to us! Here is where logic, family
tradition, and clearly-stated text in law documents will help you.
In other words, I didn't have to present the above two documents to you, because,
simply, there are accounts (that are both legally binding and constitute family
tradition) that you cannot ignore.
1)
In numerous documents that were produced in the Islamic court of law it was
very clearly stated that ‫ عطاسي‬is the origin of the word. Look here, for example:
http://www.alatassi.net/images/Khaled-Waqf1.gif
and:
http://www.alatassi.net/images/Zihrawi.jpg
regardless of when these documents were dated, they are very clear, and are legally
binding. They are court documents that have the Islamic judge's signature on them as
well as the witnesses.
2)
A family scholar and an ancestor related to us the whole story! Why jump
over it!!
http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Ibraheem.jpg
You cannot write about my family and completely ignore its handed down tradition!
You see sir, I am not creating a story out of nothing.
(Important: you may not be able to view the documents if you just click on the
provided links. you may have to copy/paste the whole link in a separate explorer)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bassel,
Thanks! this was a good and valid presentation. I re-wrote the section to reflect that
the names were used interchangably.
Now moving on: I wrote
"A family member Suleiman Al-Atassi was refered to as "Al-Sayyed" in realestate
ottoman documents in the 18th century."
This is a key issue that need to be addressed. What needs to be explained is that how
in Shiek Zein lineage cert. Ahmad Atassi was not refered to as Sayyed wherese the
Kaylani was refered to as such.It would only be natural for both to be called Sayyed if
that to be the case. It seems ( and correct me if I am wrong) that Sayyed title was only
given later to some family members. Plus Atassi family never recieved a certification
similar to that of Shiek Zein. I would suspect that Atassis did not have a proof to their
linage (even it was true) and could not claim in on official documents in early times.
Awaiting your responce.
thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No we are not done, just yet.
Your changes do not reflect the factual truth. You will have to mention the evolution
of the word as you see it in the 2 court documents which very clearly stated that: ‫أطاسي‬
had evolved from ‫عطاسي‬.
You are still ignoring that, not to mention ignoring what Ibrahim Afandi had written
about the evolution of the name as handed down generation to generation. This
evolution had already happened in Turkey as tradition goes, and when our ancestors
moved to Syria they were already known by all three surnames.
But the origin is ‫عطاسي‬. The word ‫ أطاسي‬has no meaning except that is a
mispronunciation of ‫عطاسي‬. So the word evolved from a meaningful surname to (a)
mispronounced one(s). The surname could not have evolved from a word that has no
meaning to one that did, logically!!
In show of cooperation, I will not make these changes and will wait for you to do
them yourself as you see fit. I will answer your question about Ahmad Atassi in a
minute, but unless we are reflecting the facts, we will be stuck here, and I will have to
make the amendments myself, again.
As for Ahamd Atassi, you are making historical assumptions based on what limited
knowledge we have of him, again.
If you have studied court documents as I have, you would find, numerous times, the
same person in question being addressed as "Sayed" in one instance, and then a few
months later he may be addressed as "Sheikh", and then as "Haj" and so on! Sayed
Suleiman himself was addressed in a court document I have as simply "Haj"
Suleiman.
The Ashraf were not addressed as Sayed in all documents all the time!! I have many
documents in which naqeeb Al-Ashraf himself in Homs was addressed only as
"sheikh"! Not to mention I have many documents with ashraf names on them (from
the Jandali, Zihrawi, Hiraki, Shekh Zein families and others), all addressed as either
haj or shekh, or with no title at all.
Here is a document to show my point.
http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Khaled Atassi Sydi Khaled Masjed
doc.jpg
In it, three Atassi cousins were mentioned. One was addressed as Sayed and two as
"haj". But more importantly, a Hiraki in this document is addressed as "sheikh", while
an Atassi is addressed as Sayed!! Mahmood Hiraki is actually the direct grandson of
Abdul-Jaleel Al-Hiraki the naqeeb of Homs!
In other words, to answer your question: in the old times, if you see titles of sharaf
used with a person, then that is a proof of his lineage to bani Hashem. However, if
the document does not use them, then you cannot simply exclude the fact that he is a
shareef. You just cannot make inference from a document that does not address him
in the appropriate manner, but you can make inference from one that does.
If I only had that one document in which Sayed Suleiman was addressed as "haj", we
would have never known that he had also been addressed as Sayed and as Fakhr AlAshraf…..
The document of Sheikh Zein I showed you is the only one I have in which Ahamd
Atassi was involved. We are talking 1576 AD! How many documents do you have
from that era? How many documents does anyone have from that time that involves
their ancestors? So this is the only window we have on Ahmad Atassi currently, and
you cannot make assumptions based on one document.
Now, one fact has escaped you! You acknowledge that the member of Sheikh Zein
family was addressed as "Sayed" in that document (by the way, he was no a Keilani,
as you said, but he was a follower of that sect, and belonged to the Sheikh Zein
(Barmi) family of Homs). But you forgot that their very surname, "Sheikh Zein",
which came from a certain ancestor called "Zein", involved the title "Sheikh" and not
"Sayed"! That again, proves my point that using "Sheikh" does not exclude (or prove)
any thing. Using sharaf titles does. The Sheikh Zein family produced no less than 4
Nuqaba' of Ashraf in Homs, and they say, even, that their ancestor, Sheikh Zein
himself, was a naqeeb as well.
Take the Rifaie family that you clearly believe are Ashraf because they hung a family
tree in their Manzool. Did you know that not even one author who wrote about
Ahmad Al-Rifaie (their ancestor) during Ahmad's era and throughout the 300 years
that followed, not even one, called him Sayed, mentioned that he is a descendent of
the prophet, or even labeled him as "Husseini"! He had always been known as
"Sheikh Ahmad Al-Rifaie". The exact same goes with the ancestor of the Keilanis,
Abdul-Qader. And I can give you many other examples. These people were zuhhad
and Ulma, they did not care much about spreading their nasab and showing off, yet
they did have the proof!
On the other hand, you will have to remember that Ahmad Atassi's family was new at
that time in Homs and Syria. His grandfather had arrived there from Turkey (and
before that Yemen). People may not have known their origins. Ahamd Atassi may
have not shown anyone his proof of being shareef. In fact, that is exactly why he was
called "Turkmani" by one author (and later others copied).
Now, having said that, here is a manuscript written by a grandson of Ahmad Atassi,
Mohammd the Mufti of Homs (1800-1882 AD). Notice how he addressed his
grandfather.
http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Mohammad Atassi document.jpg
Finally, you say: " I would suspect that Atassis did not have a proof to their linage
(even it was true) and could not claim in on official documents in early times"
Response: I have already mentioned above that the more ancient you go, the less your
chances are of finding documents. But!! If they did not have proof, how were they
addressed by sharaf titles in many documents (yes, even if they are a little later)?
These documents by themselves are dealt with as a proof, because the judge, the mufti
and witnesses approved them, so they are islamically and legally binding. And if
these Atassis back then did not have any proof, then they would have not been able to
claim such a status. That is why there was a naqeeb: to make sure no one claims
status of Ashraf without a valid proof.
Just a story: I went to Sayed Suleiman manzool in Homs three years ago, and they
asked me there: "we ahve always been told by our fathers that Sayed Suleiman wore a
green turban. What does that mean?" In these days, only ashraf wore that turban,
and one of the naqeeb's tasks is to prevent anyone else from wearing them.
I hope, sir, I did not just waste my time, and that your are taking all the above
seriously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bassel,
OK, I made some changes. I think now that language is very appropriate.
I agree with you that A sharif could be refered to as Sayyed and sometimes simply as
Shiek. The problem with the refrence you sited (i.e.
http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Khaled Atassi Sydi Khaled Masjed
doc.jpg as well as http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Mohammad Atassi
document.jpg ) is that both are too recent. Titles got corrupted and you would see
many non arabs called Sayyed ( so the word really lost it's meaning by the end of the
18th century) the title "Fakhr Al Ashraf" is really the only definite designation.
9(
As for Rifais I have to agree with your doubts only for the sheer number of
descendands claiming Rifai Hussayni descent. They could easly number 100 000 and
that's jus too much. Plus many were Rifai in terms of Rifai Sufi School (that also
applied to the green turbune) but not in descend and over time many claimed rifai
descend that way .On the other hand, Hirakis, Zehrawi, and Tolaymat were designated
"fakhr al-ashraf" as early as the 12th century AD, (See 11th century Tolaymat
endowmnent document (Wakf) people even called their neighbrhood in Bustan Al
Dewan as "Hay AL Ashraf" meaning the older the disgnation the more credible it is.
It seems to be that up until Suleiman there is no such designation, and if there is, it is
only made in retrospect in much recent documents. Even in Kankhah manuscript
where he mentions members of the Atassi family extensivly, not one he refered to
them as Sayyed. I seems to me that the Sayyed Title only got into affect and was
acknowleged by others in the late 18th century.
Any thoughts?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sir,
First of all I would like to have the honor of addressing you by your first name, the
way you are addressing me by mine, since we are trying to be honest with each other.
I am not sure what point you were trying to make when referring to the large numbers
of people who claim descent from the Rifaies. I agree that many of them may have
had untrue claims and cannot prove it, but that is not the point we are discussing here.
The point was: only around the 11th-12th Hijri century (and thereafter) these families
that we today regard as true Rifaies and Ashraf (such as Jandalis of Homs, Sabsabies
and Hariris of Hama, Kayyalis and Sayaddis of Halab and others) started to be titled
as Sayeds. Their ancestor Ahmad Al-Rifaie, (or more correctly, the famous cousin of
their ancestors) was not addressed by anything but "sheikh" by the authors/historians
of his time and the historians of the next three hundred years (at least). None of these
people mentioned that he descended from the prophet (PBUH), or attached the word
"Husseini" to him. In fact, those who wrote his biography when they mentioned his
origins they said he came from the west, or that his of the Rifa'a tribe. I am trying to
make a point: his descendents later on were regarded by all as ashraf. At one point,
they achieved the ashraf status because they were able to prove it through the
authentic means. I don't care how many other families later wrongly claimed descent
from Ahmad Al-Rifaie
How about the Jandalis, to whom you had referred in the past as ashraf and asked me
to see their tree. Their ancestor, Sheikh Jandal, is known just like that by the title of
sheikh! None of those who wrote his biography around his time or the next few
centuries said anything about his sharefian status or labeled him as Sayed. I submit
to you his biography from Ibn Katheer's "Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah":
‫الشيخ الصالح جندل بن محمد المنيني‬
‫ وكان يتكلم بكالم كثير ال يفهمه‬،‫ وكان الناس يترددون إلى زيارته بمنين‬،‫كانت له عبادة وزهادة وأعمال صالحة‬
‫ ما تقرب أحد إلى هللا بمثل الذل له‬:‫ وحكى عنه الشيخ تاج الدين أنه سمعه يقول‬،‫أحد من الحاضرين بألفاظ غريبة‬
‫ ألن‬،‫ وسمعه يقول الموله منفي من طريق هللا يعتقد أنه واصل ولو علم أنه منفي رجع عما هو فيه‬،‫والتضرع إليه‬
‫ قال‬.‫ السماع وظيفة أهل البطالة‬:‫ وكان يقول‬.‫طريق القوم من أهل السلوك ال يثبت عليها إال ذوو العقول الثابتة‬
‫ وأخبرني في سنة إحدى وستين‬:‫ قال‬.‫ وكان الشيخ جندل من أهل الطريق وعلماء التحقيق‬:‫الشيخ تاج الدين‬
‫ ألنه توفي في رمضان‬،‫ قلت على هذا فيكون قد جاوز المائة‬.‫وستمائة أنه قد بلغ من العمر خمسا ً وتسعين سنة‬
ً ‫ وتردد الناس لقبره يصلون عليه من دمشق وأعمالها أياما‬،‫ ودفن في زاويته المشهورة بقرية منين‬،‫من هذه السنة‬
.‫كثيرة رحمه هللا‬
No sayed, no shareef, no husseini, and no reference to a shrefian lineage. Other
biographies of that time and later were similar in that manner. It was only much later
that authors started referring to him as a Sayed and his progeny as ashraf.
This is also true of many other ashraf families, many of whom started to hold Niqabah
position in the later part of the ottoman era: the Keilanis, the Shuwaykis, the
Kuzbaris, the Samadies, the Kawakebies, the Ulwanis, the Shams Al-Deens, …and,
many, many others. Each of these families descended from a certain famous
ancestor, whose biography is well known, but you will find no reference in these
biographies of his origin or sharefian status.
Let's take the Zahrawis of Homs. They appeared in biography books somewhere
around the 8th Hijri century (14th AD). Now take a book like ‫ شذرات الذهب‬by Ibn AlImad. He mentioned several of them in Homs. Not once did he refer to any of them
as Sayed, husseini, or otherwise. Why is that? How come the ones in Halab were
referred to by these titles?
The answer is very simple. These families that held the Niqabah early in their history
are the ones who were associated with these titles so early on in biography books.
Families like Zahrawis of Halab (unlike their cousins in Homs) and Hamzawis of
Damascus were very strongly associated with the position of "Naqeeb Al-Ashraf"
very early on, and biographers took that into account. Others were not, and we see
their titles surface later. The Zahrawis of Homs did not appear as Sayeds till around
Makki's (Khanqah) time. That is when they started competing for the position of
Naqeeb Al-Ashraf in Homs. So your statement about Zihrawis of Homs acquiring
the titles of sharaf appropriately in the 12th century AD is simply wrong. Those
would be the Zihawis of Halab. Their branch in Homs appeared around the second
half of the 8th Hijri century (14th century AD), or even before, and were not
addressed as Sayeds in books until Makki's time in the late 17th century, 300 years
later! This was at the time they started holding the naqeeb position and handing it
down through the generations.
Ok, now, back to the Atassis. I agree with you that the title "Sayed" lost its
significance in the late ottoman periods. From my research into this, I would put that
around the latter half of the 13th Hijri century (mid 19th century). There are
exceptions. One is its usage in certain circles where it continued to be given to the
Hasemites only, these were the circles of scholars and ashraf. Also, as you
mentioned, the title "fakhr Al-Ashraf" and its variants continued to be specific to the
Ashraf till the fall of the Ottomans, as well as the titles "fakhr Al-Sadah" and "fakhr
Al-Sadat". These were used in the same manner, and remained faithful to the
Hashemites till the end.
I don't have many documents that predate Sayed Suleiman because, as I had
mentioned before, the more ancient you go, the more difficult it is to recover such
documents. Not only that, but given the fact that I left Syria when I was 5 (never to
live in it again), that I moved to the US at the age of 16 (and continued to live here
ever since), it made it very difficult to uncover old documents. Many of my relatives
were reluctant to help out for many reasons. I was regarded as a young man, and I
might have come across, somethimes, as somewhat intimidating to older Atassis.
Atassis are very proud and, sometimes, stubborn people (sorry).
But what created an even harder obstacle was the fact that I was viewed by some as a
stranger or an outsider who lived outside of Homs and Syria for the larger portion of
his life. Homsi Atassis knew my grandfather and my father, but not me. I was
literally told by some that I have no right to write about the family, given that I had
never lived in Homs.
Some thought I was seeking to create problems among the different branches (as the
famous Atassis were concentrated in 3 of the 15 branches). Some were just simply
not interested, and continue to be so till today, despite my best efforts. Most of the 30
or so documents I have today actually came from no more than 4 or 5 people out of
around 3200 existing Atassis. These were the ones who were willing to help me. Not
to mention that about 95% of the family's wealth in terms of their ancestors libraries,
old manuscripts, and court documents were lost, mostly because of neglect, ignorance
and lack of interest, unfortunately. Needless to say, my job was not easy, but I am
very passionate about it.
Was Sayed Suleiman the first Atassi to be labeled as Sayed? Was he the only one?
No!
If you visit the grave of Ali Atassi (the first), the ancestor of all Atassis, the very first
Atassi we know, you will find that the word "Al-Sayed" was engraved on his tomb.
His tomb is one of the oldest standing tombs in all of Homs (from the 10th Hijri
century, the 16th century AD), owing to the fact that he was buried in the very
mosque in which he practiced his scholarly activities.
Other Atassis before Sayed Suleiman and around his time were also called Sayed in
documents. I submit to you a court document dated in 1156 Hijri (~1743 AD), with
the name of many Ashrafs on it, including Sayed Abdul-Lateef Atassi (the son of Ali
Atassi in the makhtoot of Makki and the brother of Abdul-Wahhab who was also
mentioned in the same Makhtoot). You will also find the names of two more Atassis,
both direct grandsons of Ali Al-Atassi of the Makhtoot: Sayyed Abdul-Raheem
Chalabi Al-Atassi and Haj Abdul-Ghaffar Al-Atassi.
http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Abdul-Lateef and Abdul-Raheem
Atassi.jpg
In the documents of Sayed Suleiman, his father Abdullah was addressed as "Sayed" as
well, and a cousin "Sayed Khalil Al-Atasssi" and his son "Sayed Abdul-Raheem" also
appeared.
A document dated in 1185 hijri (1771 D) mentioned three Atassis and labeled them as
Sayeds: one in the main text: "Al-Sayed Al-Haj….Chalabi Al-Atassi" (the area in the
original document was torn out and we don’t know who this man was), and at the end:
"Sayed Othman Al-Atassi" who I think is the uncle of Sayed Suleiman, and the son of
Bakeer Atassi, one of the Atassis who were mentioned in Makki's Makhtoot. Also at
the end: "Sayed Moahammad Al-Atassi". We don’t know to what branch the latter
man belonged or who his father was.
http://www.alatassi.net/images/Othman.jpg
=============================================================
====================
Thanks Bassel for presenting a wealth of refrences.
As for zehrawis. I thought i saw Fakhr al sadah title in Wakfiet Tolaymat family
which is probably the oldest in Homs. so correct me if I am wrong.
As for the Sayyed title losing its significance, I will put that arround early and mid
18th century and the proof is your own document
http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Abdul-Lateef and Abdul-Raheem
Atassi.jpg
in which many non ashraf were called Sayyeds.
I think having : 1) titles similar to "fakhr el sadah", 2) Heading naqabat al Ashraf, 3)
having Husseini always following the surname (tolaymat Hussayni for example) 4)
the masses acceptance to Sharif Lineage are all key factors in a claim. 5) haveing
lineage or certificats.
All 5 are key to establish the claim.
The word "Sayyed" does not mean anyhting really unless it's written in the context of
Ashraf. for example a Naqeeb document.
I am glad that there is a document that refer to Suleiman as Fakhr Al Sadah. which
supports your claim but i think that's really where it stops. out of the 5 factors one is
only strong. Which is not to say that its not true. After all the prigins are disputed,
growing up i heard scores of atassis being proud of turkish descend. They could be
wrong..but that surly make it disputed.
I sujjest we agree on a wording that is conservative..what do you think?
=============================================================
================================
I still don't know your name!
No one has ever come up with these five factors before you. Some are true, but they
are out of context Sir, you do not dictate what constitute keys to establish the claim of
Sharaf.
I see now that you are clearly biased. And I will show you why:
First you claim that only Sayed Suleiman was addressed as Sayed. You acknowledge
that this is a valid title for Ashraf at that time. But when I refute your claim that
Sayed Suleiman was the only person to be described that way, and show you
documents, some older, some in which other Atassis were titled "Sayed", you go
back, change your previous "beliefs" and claim that "Sayed" now is longer valid at
that time, and you set the time when this title no longer is valid at exact date of these
documents!!!!
I tell you that the very first Atassi we know was called Sayed on his tomb stone in the
in 16th century AD and you completely ignore that and keep talking about the
documents of the 18th century!
You cannot be more biased, sir.
And by the way, no, those who were titled "Sayed" are known Ashraf in that
document. And no, I have the Waqf of Tuleimant in fron of me and I see no Zihrawi
on it. Anyways, I was told by a Homsi historian (whom I respect) that this Waqf is
"Madhroob" and that Naeem Zihrawi has a hand in it. I cannot confirm that, and I
truely belief that the Tuleimats are ashraf, anyways.
Sir, I am not about to give you a lecture about the validity of court documents when i
comes to establishing sharaf status. I can give you numerous historcail texts where a
historian, a shareef or a naqeeb of Ashraf deemed a family of true sharefian descent
despite not knowing their lineage, because they carried ottoman documents that
addressed their ancestor as "sayed" (not even fakhr Al-Sadah or Al-Ashraf).
You claim that you need a full lineage to be a Shreef. When I ask you to give me the
lineage of Zihrawis of Homs (they don’t know their lineage currently; they lost their
tree!) you ignore that. I asked you to give me the lineage of Jaberis of Halab (also
were nuqaba in late ottoman period) you also ignore my question. These lost their
lineage as well. I asked you to give me the amood of Hirakis in Homs, or the Rifaeis
to compare them with what certain authors had said, but you shied away from that
challenge.
You make it necessary for a family to have claimed the position of Naqeeb to be of
Ashraf class but that is erroneous. The Ashraf families that did not claim such
position are way more than the ones who did. That is very well known. Examples are
numerous: Abdeens of Damascus, Sibaies, Ashraf, Maharat, and Hashemi/Skaf of
Homs, Hariris of Hama....Not only that, when you see Omar Al-Omar saying that
Abdul-Razzq Atassi was naqeeb you refute that because Naeem Zahrawi did not want
that to happen!
I give you numerous examples of families of Ashraf who were never addressed by the
appropriate titles for hundreds of years and whose ancestors biographies never
mentioned anything about that.... yet you continue to use that same argument against
the Atassis only. I give you historical arguments about why some Ashraf families
were more frequently addressed by these titles than others, but you ignore that.
You set time limits to refute anything given to you. I give you a document and you
want something older. I tell you Janadalis (and others) for 400 years were not
addressed as ashraf, and you don’t care, but you care that there is a laps of about 150
years or a little more between the one document of Ahmad Atassi and those of his
descendents Sayed Suleiman/Abdul-Lateef/Othman and use against me the fact that I
don't have documents to cover that period.
You tell me some Atassis say that they were Turkish. I know some of these Atassis.
This sir, is because of the cultural attacks that targeted my family in the 50s and later,
and untill today. This is part of a political campaign. Some of the newer generation
were told they are Turkman by their teachers, colleagues, mentors, and others. But if
you ask them to tell you why? Who? When? They have no idea. They would not be
able to hold a historical conversation with you.
You are here discussing the origins of a family with its historian who is giving you
documentations, historical accounts, biographical examples; who has studied the
family history for almost 10 years now….. Yet you tell some Atassi (who probably
cannot tell you who his/her 5th ancestor was) told you otherwise!!!! I met some of
these Atassis and discussed that with them. They have nothing, and eventually they
saw my vision.
Sir, I know Hirakis who refuse any claim that there are Ashraf today at all! I know
Jandalis who have no idea what their origins are! Should we then conclude that their
origins are disputed? That, sir, is a ridiculous argument.
Not only that, I give you a written account by a famous ancestor of the family, a well
known Islamic scholar from the ottoman period in Homs, who mentioned that the
family is Yemenite in origin as he had heard from his ancestors, and handed down fo
hundred of years, father to son. Yet you give me the claims of some contemporary
Atassi far removed from scholarly activities, historical interests, and well immersed in
today's materialistic word and who cannot back any claims up…..
I am sure if I show you other proofs that you will come up with more restrictions and
laws that only you can make.
You say that ashraf have to be called Husseini. Fine. Here is my fourth great grand
father Mohammad Atassi "Al-Husseini" Mufti of Homs from an ottoman document
from the 13th Hijri century.
http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Mohammad Signiture.jpg
Here is Khaled Atassi "Al-Husseini" the mufti of Homs from the same period in the
same document
http://alatassi.net/images/Khaled-signiture.jpg
Hers in Khaled Afandi "Al-Husseini" in a different document dated 1861 AD (1278
hijri).
http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Khaled-Sheikh Zein.jpg
Not satisfied? Here is what the most famous poet of his time, Ameen Afandi Al-Jindi,
said about Abdul Sattar Atassi Mufti of Homs (the nephew of Sayyed Suleiman's
wife):
http://www.alatassi.net/images/Jindi1.jpg
http://www.alatassi.net/images/Jindi2.jpg
You want more poetry? more indications from the ottoman time of the well
established knowledge about the origins of my family? Sure. please visit this link:
http://www.alatassi.net/view.php?action=article&id=90
and read what had been said about Saleh Atassi, Akef Atassi, and Zaki Atassi.
You said that you need titles like "Fakhr Al-Sada", we gave you the Sayed Suleiman
documents, but off course you were not satisfied. Want more? Sure, no problem:
http://www.umich.edu/~bazilla/Atasi Docs/Abdul-sattar-Bakri.jpg
Want more, sir?
Judging for the lack of argument on your side and insistence on your opinion despite
evidence presented to you, I am sure more will not satisfy you. I hereby suspend this
discussion and revert to editing what I have more qualification to write about than
you: my own family. I never had to engage you in any discussion in the first place or
present any evidence to you.
Sir,
Please do not speak to me about academic research. I provided you with written and
authenticated accounts, some of which are several centuries old. All you provided me
with is: "I heard this growing up from some Atassis". You could not be farther from
"scientific and academic methodology".
Sorry, but we cannot continue until you acknowledge that you are wrong about Sayed
Suleiman being the only one who was connected with the Ashraf status, and until you
reflect that in your statement. That is because there were several others who were
also designated with Ashraf titles:
1) Sayed Ali Atassi (the first), mid 15th century AD
2) Sayed Abdul-Lateef ibn Ali, mid 17th centruy AD
3) Sayed Abdul-Raheem Atassi, late 17th century AD
4) Sayed Abdullah Atssi, late 17th century AD
5) Fakh Al-Sadah Al-Ashraf Sayed Suleiman Atassi, late 17th century AD
6) Sayed Khalil Atassi
7) Sayed Othman Atassi
8) Sayed Mohammad Atassi
9) Omdat Al-Sadah Al-Kiram Abdul-Sattar Atassi: addressed as the "son of prophet
Mohammad" and designated as the a shareef and Sayed by several famous scholars of
his time such as Jindi and Malloohi.
10) Sayed Moahmmad Atassi "Al-Husseini"
11) Sayed Khaled Afandi Atassi Al-Husseini"
12) Akef Atassi, engraved on his tombstone: "his grandfather the prophet"
13) Zaki Atassi, engraved on his tombstone: "of the prophet family"
And others.
The following statements are not acceptable and will not be included in any version of
the article, whether you see that fit, or otherwise:
1) "The family origins are not clear". They are very clear.
2) "Many in Homs including some Atassi family members regard the family to be of
turkoman descend".
Irrelevant and not true. Many regard the family as ashraf in Homs and outside it. If
some think the family is of Turkman descent then that is not relevant since they
cannot back it up against a wealth of historical and legal documentation, as well as
written family accounts and traditions, simply said.
3) "in spight of realestate ottoman documents in the mid 18th century clearly referring
to Suleiman Atassi As a Sayyed asserting his Arab descend".
Not acceptable because many other Atassis had the same status, as I had proven
Sorry, but will not let you include these statements or similar ones.
The statement: "what I said is that its more credible when its mentioned on "Naqeeb"
document and not in a realestate titles. and naturaly the more old it is the more valid it
becomes. For example, Shiek Zein certification is a naqeeb document and it would
have been proper to for the atassi to be Addressed as such but he was not"
is erroneous.
There is no such thing as a "Naqeeb document". If you could point out who the
Naqeeb was in the above document you will prove me wrong. This document was
another "court" document, certified by the Judge, the Mufti and witnesses. There
were no such thing as "real state" documents. These are also "court" documents,
again, certified by the Judge, Mufti and witnesses. They are endowments (waqf) and
inheritance documents. They are no different in validity than those that addressed
genealogy. They were done the same manner in the same place, by the same people.
You need to do some reading about that subject, and I can point out many books for
you, in both English and Arabic, that studied Islamic Law Court Registers in Syria
and Lebanon.
Again, you are trying to put restrictions to make things difficult. You want me to
present you with documents in which Atassis were addressed as "Sayed" in the
presence of Naqeeb Al-Ashraf. I have examples of these documents, but will simply
not waste my time uploading them for you because I consider this discussion a lost
cause.
Sir, to say that all these scholars (my ancestors and those who certified their status)
are liars or people who made uneducated claims, is an insult that I will not take
lightly.
You will here from me in the future in a different capacity, as well. You are not the
only one who can change and write articles.