Nasb-and-the-Nawasib

narrations in this regard without scrutiny and names it al-Nizāʿ wa al-Takhāṣum
Fīmā Bayn Umayyah wa Banī Hāshim.
Those who aver that the clash between the Banū Hāshim and the Banū Umayyah
endured tried to explain everything that had transpired, from the opposition of
the Umayyads to ʿAlī I and their rebellion against him, to all the suffering the
ʿAlawīs suffered at their hands; in light of this supposed clash. 1
But their analysis is not correct for the following reasons:
Firstly, this analysis undermines the various causes which contributed to the
instigation of this clash, especially the political cause.
Secondly, it necessitates the impugning of the Banū Umayyah in general, i.e.
whether they were from the people who accepted Islam at the conquest of
Makkah or before that. Whereas amongst them there were great Ṣaḥābah M
who were known for their sound Islam according to all. 2 Sufficient to establish
their virtue is the fact that Nabī H got his daughters married to them and
married in them. Also, it was from their tribe that Nabī H had appointed
the most people to prominent positions; had they been insincere in their faith,
continued from page 181
Secondly, his disillusionment with Abū Sufyān I and deeming him a hypocrite, as is clear in his
book al-Nizāʿ wa al-Takhāṣum. Some researchers are, however, of the opinion that this book is falsely
attributed to al-Muqrīzī and this opinion is forged against him. See: Abāṭīl Yajib an Tumḥā min al-Tārīkh
p. 209.
Thirdly, he has approved the lineage of the Fatimids which according to the quasi unanimity of the
scholars and genealogists is not true. Likewise his book Ittiʿāẓ al-Ḥunafāʾ bi Akhbār al-Fāṭimiyyīn al-
Khulafāʾ is also an indication of this.
Here also, however, it should be noted that he considered his lineage to be linked with the ʿUbaydiyyīn.
So was his praise for them and his approval of their lineage because of this or not? See: al-Ḍawʾ al-Lāmiʿ
2/23.
1 Sharḥ Iḥqāq al-Ḥaqq 23/644.
2 Majmūʿ Fatāwā Shaikh al-Islām 35/64.
182