I’ve been reading Ajoyib Al-Maqdum Fi Tarikhi Taymur for the past few days, and I must say it’s been a very frustrating experience. The author devotes over 80 pages to his own biography—a section that seems unnecessary and poorly supported by evidence. How can anyone write a biography without solid proof?

At first, I thought perhaps the author wanted to explain his personal connection to Amir Temur, which might justify the lengthy self-portrait. However, as I read on, it became clear that his personal bias taints the whole account. Nearly every other sentence paints Amir Temur as “evil” or “cursed,” and at one point, the book even claims that a “divine curse” drove his actions—yet there is no evidence or credible source to support these sensational statements.

Moreover, by focusing so much on his own life without linking it effectively to the broader historical context, the author undermines the reliability of his work. It feels as if the goal was to create a dramatic narrative rather than offer a balanced, evidence-based historical record. In Uzbek, we say, “Sochim Tikka-Tikka bo‘ldi,” which literally means “my hair stands on end”—a perfect description of my reaction to this one-sided and poorly supported portrayal