What do you think?
Rate this book
The Historians' Mu'awiya: The Depiction of Mu'awiya in the Early Islamic Sources
This work is an attempt to understand and correctly interpret the commentaries of the early Muslim historians on the Umayyad caliph Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan. Mu'awiya's depiction in the early Muslim narratives is very much dependent on the period in which these accounts take place and reflects the attitudes of narrators to the events of those periods. Thus one finds that pre-civil war Mu'awiya is quite different from civil war Mu'awiya and the same goes for post-civil war Mu'awiya. There is no evolution or devolution of the character it is simply the period in which this particular character finds himself in that colors the depiction. This work has uncovered the paradigms utilized by the early historians in their depictions of Mu'awiya. It also shows that although the personality of Mu'awiya has been manipulated by the early Islamic sources, the essential building blocks of his history remains uniform throughout even within the most hostile of these sources towards Mu'awiya.
204 pages, Paperback
Published December 3, 2008
14 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 16, 2026
The "Historians' Muawiya" makes a very intriguing read. Who was Muawaiya ibn abi sufyan according to the historians who wrote about him in their tarikhs?
Was he the Muawiya who possesses hilm (forebearnace) and casually brushes aside snide remarks made to his face or the thoughtless, impulsive tyrant who kills?
Was he a Jahiliyah oriented tribal sheikh or a despot?
Did he possesses the knowledge of what his predecessors did when it came to governing the Ummah or was he oblivious to the way of the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr, and Umar, may God be pleased with them?
What the book shows is a contradictory evolution of his character painted by the historians with their specific political and ideological leanings.
Muawiya phase 1- is honorable, knowledgable of the quran, good at defending his arguments, knows that there are other more worthy than him given their early entrance into islam, courageous, trustworthy and he is also a brave commander.
This character then transitions to:
Muawiya phase 2- Who is negative, a cowardly commander, an inarticulate representative of the Quraysh, a Muawiya who seldom quotes the Quran, and all other unfavorable characteristics opposite to that mentioned in phase 1.
A look at the sources shows that historians almost present Muawiya as three different people. The Muawiya before the fitna seems quite different from the Muawiya during the fitna, who appears stripped of many of his earlier traits. Then after the fitna, yet another version of Muawiya shows up—once again with a persona that doesn’t really resemble his earlier persona.
Take the fitna period for example. The narrators and historians used terms and incidents from the Prophet, peace be upon him's struggle against the Quraysh and they imposed them on the disagreement between Ali and Muawiya. Muawiya's role was confined to that of the antagonist and as such his character does not transcend this role. The complicated issues that brought about the fitna were drummed down by those who wrote about it by shaping the whole affair into a struggle between good (Ali) vs Evil (Muawiya)
And how did they do this? One of the ways mentioned by the author that comes to my mind is:
By subtly dropping Muawiya's name in places that carry a negative connotation like as a witness to a public execution of a Muslim by his father before the conquest of Makkah, or him being present as a participant during the battle of the trench, etc.
Would recommend this book to anyone interested in Islamic historiography, particularly those already familiar with seerah and maghazi literature and aware of the various perspectives on the fitna.
Was he the Muawiya who possesses hilm (forebearnace) and casually brushes aside snide remarks made to his face or the thoughtless, impulsive tyrant who kills?
Was he a Jahiliyah oriented tribal sheikh or a despot?
Did he possesses the knowledge of what his predecessors did when it came to governing the Ummah or was he oblivious to the way of the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr, and Umar, may God be pleased with them?
What the book shows is a contradictory evolution of his character painted by the historians with their specific political and ideological leanings.
Muawiya phase 1- is honorable, knowledgable of the quran, good at defending his arguments, knows that there are other more worthy than him given their early entrance into islam, courageous, trustworthy and he is also a brave commander.
This character then transitions to:
Muawiya phase 2- Who is negative, a cowardly commander, an inarticulate representative of the Quraysh, a Muawiya who seldom quotes the Quran, and all other unfavorable characteristics opposite to that mentioned in phase 1.
A look at the sources shows that historians almost present Muawiya as three different people. The Muawiya before the fitna seems quite different from the Muawiya during the fitna, who appears stripped of many of his earlier traits. Then after the fitna, yet another version of Muawiya shows up—once again with a persona that doesn’t really resemble his earlier persona.
Take the fitna period for example. The narrators and historians used terms and incidents from the Prophet, peace be upon him's struggle against the Quraysh and they imposed them on the disagreement between Ali and Muawiya. Muawiya's role was confined to that of the antagonist and as such his character does not transcend this role. The complicated issues that brought about the fitna were drummed down by those who wrote about it by shaping the whole affair into a struggle between good (Ali) vs Evil (Muawiya)
And how did they do this? One of the ways mentioned by the author that comes to my mind is:
By subtly dropping Muawiya's name in places that carry a negative connotation like as a witness to a public execution of a Muslim by his father before the conquest of Makkah, or him being present as a participant during the battle of the trench, etc.
Would recommend this book to anyone interested in Islamic historiography, particularly those already familiar with seerah and maghazi literature and aware of the various perspectives on the fitna.
Displaying 1 of 1 review