Dear Mr Mubashir
i mam reading your books online and i appreciate its a good effort, especially your book” Muslim Duniya ,Zehni,Fikri aur nafsiati Ghulami. But when i read your book “APNI SHAKHSIAT AUR KIRDAR KI TAMEER KASE KI JAI” I was disappointed by one of your example in the topic ” quwwate bardasht”. Because I am the student of history and I know what the Amir Muawia did in his 20 years rule. And then he tried to convert the muslim khilafat into malookiat. And he did so and the result was in the form of “Waqia Karbala”. This is the history and it cant be denied. My point is that if you want to quote an example it should be a good example. Because in this way you can say that Zia-ul-Haq ruled for 11 years because he was a very patient person. Musharrif ruled for 9 years because he is very patient. The length of ruling period is not a sign of patients. I hope you get my point.
I hope you ll not think that I am a Shia because ‘I am not’.
But the truth is truth.
Assalam o alaikum wa Rahmatullah
Many thanks for your kind words and comments about my books.
Syedna Amir Muawiya رضی اللہ عنہ was a great companion and his government was established by abdication of Syedna Hassan رضی اللہ عنہ. If we accept the narrations portraying himself as a dictator, the matter will not remain limited to him. If we accept the information contained in the books of history, we’ll have to accept, na’uzu billah, that all the companions of the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم including Hazrat Hassan, Hussain, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Abu Huraira, Abdullah Ibn U’mar رضی اللہ عنہم and a lot more were also culprits who accepted his Khilafat. It is completely wrong to compare him with culprits like Zia or Musharaf.
I appreciate that you study the history. There is a discipline in the historical studies that deals with criticism on historical events. Since the matter is grave, we should evaluate the authenticity of the events reported by the history. We should not accept all incidents reported to us by historians without such evaluation. It is very logical. If someone blames our father, should we accept his accusations without any assessment? It is a well-known truth that a great propaganda was conducted against the companions of the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم to portray their wrong picture in order to create doubts about their integrity. Similarly, Banu A’bbas did the same to defame the Ummayyads.
As a student of history, you know that the primary source of Muslim history is the “Tarikh Tabari” which was written around 300H, about 250 years after the period of Caliph Mu’awiya رضی اللہ عنہ. The approach of Tabari was to compile all the narrations (whether authentic or not) in a chronological order. He only compiled the traditions and did not perform evaluation of such reports. Recently, a group of Arab scholars named Barzanji, Hallaq, Zia al-U’mri and Khalil have conducted that evaluation and found that large number of reports in this book are fake. If you know Arabic, you should study the history from its original source. All other history books of subsequent periods were written based on Tabari’s work. Large number of narrators who reported the incidents related to the civil wars of companion’s time were biased against the companions. You can take each narration one by one and see the biographies of their narrators compiled by the scholars of Hadith.
It is completely wrong to consider Hazrat Mu’awiya as the person who transformed Khilafat into Malukiyat. I’ll advise you to read a book of Maulana Taqi Usmani that will clarify the position of Hazrat Mu’awiya رضی اللہ عنہ. Since you’ve mentioned that you are not a Shia, I’ll urge you to study it with an open mind and analyze its content critically. The book is available at the following links:
Don’t hesitate to share your questions and comments. They will be highly appreciated. I’ll reply as soon as possible if I know the answer. Send at firstname.lastname@example.org.