Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

The origin of the Banu Umayya Vs. Banu Hashim Feud

Rate this topic


Talut

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Salam,


Umayya, who was the adopted son of Abd Shams ibn Abd Manaf, the brother of Hashim was jealous at his uncle Hashim and insisted that he made a bet with him. Both of them should approach a sage (story-teller) and the latter would confirm who was fit for leadership.

Hashim won the bet so Umayya was hummiliated and had to leave Makkah for ten years which was the condition of the bet.

This was the beginning of the feud between Banu Umayya and Banu Hashim that erupted 130 years later.

Edited by Talut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, Zigzag said:

And hence forth a tribal feud becomes a religious feud then religious sects a few centuries further down. 

There is some sense in your statement. Although I believe the sectarianism was not artificial but an issue of Truth versus Falsehood. 

Edited by Talut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

please keep one thing in mind Ali vs muawiyah feud is not simply a hashim vs ummayyah struggle 

there are hashmites living in syria as siffin happened and indeed ummayyads living  in hijaz/iraq/egypt i.e under Ali at the same time.

This also had a syria vs Iraq nationalist flavor 

clash of earlier islamic pious hiearchy vs later converts of tribal importance 

So its a multifaceted problem and not simply tribal or a religious struggle either 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

please keep one thing in mind Ali vs muawiyah feud is not simply a hashim vs ummayyah struggle 

there are hashmites living in syria as siffin happened and indeed ummayyads living  in hijaz/iraq/egypt i.e under Ali at the same time.

This also had a syria vs Iraq nationalist flavor 

clash of earlier islamic pious hiearchy vs later converts of tribal importance 

So its a multifaceted problem and not simply tribal or a religious struggle either 

I am known with the fact that the Syria versus Iraq feud was a proxy war between the Byzantines and the Persians. 

And ofcourse, diffirent interrests, diffirent feuds were involved as well but that doesn't mean that the bottom line of all feuds was just an ordinairy struggle over power.

I notice that behind the caliphacy the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. felt responsible for the unity, the well-being, the Sunnah and the commitments of the caliphs towards their agreements, treaties and responsibilities concerning the Ummah and although they withdrew from political power, it was never for their own interests but for the interests of the Ummah.





 

Edited by Talut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 12 April 2016 at 9:25 PM, Panzerwaffe said:

Just the fact that ammar, ansar and Ali all were in one camp and there are hadith proving all 3 of them are on haqq means it wasn't a simple power struggle 

How do you reconcile this with the fact that Ammar and ansar were on side of AbuBakr/Umar in their caliphates? Would they be on haqq as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12-4-2016 at 10:25 PM, Panzerwaffe said:

Just the fact that ammar, ansar and Ali all were in one camp and there are hadith proving all 3 of them are on haqq means it wasn't a simple power struggle 

Yes that's right. However the centuries-old discussion is the question wether it was about the policy of that time or the leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt a.s.

These two matters seem to be intertwined and at the same time distinguished because of diffirnet convinctions and interests of all individuals and parties participating.

The proposal of Abu Sufyan for pledging allegiance to Imam Ali a.s. just after Saqifa for example was ofcourse a move made of interrests, not conviction that Imam Ali a.s. was the rightful ruler. 

Abu Sufyan just couldn't bear the humiliation that someone other than Banu Umayya took leadership even if that would mean that he had to pleddge allegiance to someone from Banu Hashim because Banu Hashim was closer to Banu Umayya for its relation to Banu Abd Shams. 

Edited by Faruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, Zigzag said:

How do you reconcile this with the fact that Ammar and ansar were on side of AbuBakr/Umar in their caliphates? Would they be on haqq as well?

Indeed they were and ammar and ansar predominantly opposed uthman 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...