The Sin of Sanctifying Islamic History, or, The Quraish Didn't Lose

Tariq Nelson wrote about how Nasrallah accused Abu Sufyan of being a hypocrite. I left a comment that has since been deleted, probably since I was critical of making such a person a bone of contention 1,400 years later. My line of reasoning was that because Abu Sufyan was the Prophet's mortal enemy for over 20 years, because his wife ate Hamza's liver, because his son reintroduced Ignorance (jahiliyyah) to the Muslims, we should not feel obligated to respect him or get upset if others point out that Abu Sufyan only became Muslim after the very end, when Makka was already taken and he had clearly lost. His faith or lack of it is between him and God, but I will in no way feel bound by Sunni polemics that fossilize and sacntify a particular historical position (note, I am not Shi'a either, so this is not a partisan argument). I have to wonder if the sanctification of people like Abu Sufyan who I cannot even begin to compare to people like Abu Dharr, Aisha, or Abu Zubair, was the result of post-Prophetic processes related to the civil war between Ali, Muawiya and the Kharijites.

Its about time that we see that Jahiliyyah was indeed reintroduced by Muwaiyah whom I can only identify as an imperialist, tribalist Arabist who could not break out of his feelings of entitlement to power and self-superiority over non-Arab Muslim because of his father's lost position and tribal presige. Its no accident that the Umayyads were later overthrown by a pietist movement later known as the Abbasids. The Quraish didn't lose; they adapted and overcame. I for one, will not sanctify their eventual return to power.