What's new

Battle of Yarmouk

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way what was Mr Khalifa the Pious trying to do with virgin hindu girls in his hareem? And killing his own qualified men upon to testimony of "slave hindu girls"...what a shame..does it get more pathetic than this? Man I never want to be ruled by a moron like this! In true neutrality how many accounts are there of Hindu kings taking Arab women as hareem slaves? Looks like Mr.Khalifa was more motivated by hedonism than Islamic brotherhood

Slaves are slaves and they shouldn't be treated other than that. So, Umar Bin Alkhattab, Othman, and Abu Bhaker were Despotic according to you!?. Am I right?
 
You have just come up with five inventions by Indians...!

Show me your history, show me your achievements, you have non... in the other thread you considred Indians and Arab rule of Sindh part of your history!:rofl:

The term Indian in the past referred to anyone belonging to the Sub-Continent. The Sub-Continent is extremely diverse with people of multiple races & ethnicities, & if you want you could even visit different regions of India for proof of this.

Just because Pakistan & India were ruled together by the British doesn't mean that they are automatically the same people. The Persians ruled over a variety of people living on the same land, but that doesn't make everyone Persian either. I could go in to details about our ethnicities, but they have already been discussed so many times that people will simply use that as an excuse to argue.

The Indus valley or Harappan civilization was primarily focused around what is now Pakistan. The history of that ancient nation belongs to us, & we get to take credit for their inventions & discoveries.

Read about Panini; he was a Sanskrit grammarian from modern day Pakistan.

Panini

His birth place is a town called "Shalatula".

Shalatula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course most people foolishly call him an Indian simply because that's a general term for anyone born in the Sub-Continent. Otherwise he was born in our land, & he is related to us genetically. Thus the credit for his efforts belongs to Pakistanis alone.

Panini biography

Panini was a Sanskrit grammarian who gave a comprehensive and scientific theory of phonetics, phonology, and morphology. Sanskrit was the classical literary language of the Indian Hindus and Panini is considered the founder of the language and literature. It is interesting to note that the word "Sanskrit" means "complete" or "perfect" and it was thought of as the divine language, or language of the gods.

[Sanskrit's] potential for scientific use was greatly enhanced as a result of the thorough systemisation of its grammar by Panini. ... On the basis of just under 4000 sutras [rules expressed as aphorisms], he built virtually the whole structure of the Sanskrit language, whose general 'shape' hardly changed for the next two thousand years. ... An indirect consequence of Panini's efforts to increase the linguistic facility of Sanskrit soon became apparent in the character of scientific and mathematical literature. This may be brought out by comparing the grammar of Sanskrit with the geometry of Euclid - a particularly apposite comparison since, whereas mathematics grew out of philosophy in ancient Greece, it was ... partly an outcome of linguistic developments in India.

Panini's grammar has been evaluated from various points of view. After all these different evaluations, I think that the grammar merits asserting ... that it is one of the greatest monuments of human intelligence.

Personally I don't take credit for the accomplishments of any race that isn't related to me regardless of his or her religion. This is another reason many Pakistanis need to claim & take pride in their own heritage.
 
What about the rest 100 or 150 hundred Arab scientists!:lol:

A majority of them were non-arabs..you are just claiming their heritage playing the islamic ummah card. And whatever Arab scientists did come they mostly belonged to Syria & Iraq - the two traditional centers of knowledge. Nothing came from Najd!

So, you imply that the only Arabs who only came from Arabian Peninsula! And guess what? I am not an Arab anymore...according to Pakistani Somebozo...:rofl:


I never knew Hashmite education was so bad on geography - but Jordan is part of Arabian peninsula but Egypt is only linguistically Arab.

And off course the scientists achievements we stole were Pakistanis right? you are the only people who didn't contribute anything unlike Persians and Kurds who contributed allot, Anyway, even those were Arabized and they flourished only under Arab rule you poor Pakistani.

Persians became Arabized???? When where and how?? Last time we checked even the Arabs in Persian occupied Island were giving a middle finger to Arabs.



You have just come up with five inventions by Indians...!

Show me your history, show me your achievements, you have non... in the other thread you considred Indians and Arab rule of Sindh part of your history!:rofl:

Trolling on purpose when the entire world now considers Indus and Gandhara as part of Pakistani heritage. Now you have shifted to your "If can debate then ridicule" mode. The fact that despite the Arab / Ummyad rule - Arabic language and culture found no place in North-West Indian subcontinent (modern day Pakistan) just like it found no place in Persian and Spain but instead Arab ended up learning and exporting a lot of culture back to their mainlands is a testimony that the Arab culture did not appeal to the locals due to its inferiority. Because naturally the superior and tolerant culture always comes to dominate over inferior one. And this is the reason why Arabs today are fully doused in Western culture through popular TV shows and soaps as well have a highly imported culture which draws cues from Persian, Turkish, European, Greek, Armenian and Roman influences.


Yes, I am arrogant with people who bite the hands that feed them, those people don't deserve any sympathy. Enough with you Somebbozo, you should be grateful with the time and attention I have given you, which u don't dream of in your real life.

time and attention given me?? You should be ashamed of time and attention you wasted trying to unsuccessfully troll on PDF...because your argument of biting the hands which feeds them make no sense. This is another example of typical arrogance because it is Allah which feeds not some internet trolls. And by making a uncivilized statement like this you have exposed your true camel jokey character.

Slaves are slaves and they shouldn't be treated other than that. So, Umar Bin Alkhattab, Othman, and Abu Bhaker were Despotic according to you!?. Am I right?

Why are you trying to divert the topic? Case of classic defeat?? or arrogance?

Remember Islam abolished all slavery?

So you are implying that those Caliph Rashidoon were no different than Khalifa Le Pervert???

Shame on you...arrogance can turn one blind. At-least think before you speak!

Come on man you were the people who were following Indian pagan culture in the heart of Makkah - wasn't Hashmites a clan of Quraysh tribe were the ruler of Makkah??? Ohh and as well played a key role in opposing and sieging the Noble Prophet SAW. Now a decendent of Abu Lahab is teaching Islam to us on PDF...hahahahahah ahhaha hahh...cant stop laughing anymore....



Abu Lahab (Banu Hashim)

Anyway lets not derail the thread and stick to subject of discussion battle of Yarmouk!
 
Some of you guys needs to be en-listed in stupid & funny thread, so now the logic is in some specific battles lesser numbers wins and the greater number loses just by watching movies your minds have been fked up over the top Fox News tunes it up more.

The Highest Authority in History Records Accepts that all the Battles that Muslims Won and All that Muslims Lost and are in Sync with the History of Islam and Conquests-Wars-Treaties and so on penned down written remembered by Muslims.

Lastly you couple of feather weight punks are posting own views, and rest of the world is making authentic documentaries on the true Islamic conquests-Wars exactly as to what Muslim-Non ones Historians have penned down Nat Geo- Discovery the most reliable source considered compared to some onliners.

A few authentic sources: For more sources Google...

Kohn, George. Dictionary Of Wars.

Mcgraw Donner, F. The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton, 1981.
 
Correction...Arab history
I don't believe in Muslim brotherhood.

"Arab history" was very different for millenniums before the advent of Islam. Historically, the area was not very significant. Burying helpless little baby daughters alive, "inherit" your dad's wives, fight and kill enemy tribes for centuries over trivial stuff. Islam transformed them from that, into people that shone as a guiding light for mankind, leading the world in science, astronomy, physics, literally every field for almost a thousand years, while Europe went through it's dark ages(burning suspected witches, making a hole in your head if you had a mental, etc - similar type of Jahiliya stuff Arabs/other humans did).

The Holy Prophet(PBUH) did NOT believe in Arab superiority, black Africans, Iranians(Fars), and people from all over were treated equally. The Holy Prophet(PBUH) said that no Arab has superiority over any Ajam, or vice versa. That the Muslim Ummah was like one body, when one part of the body was suffering, the whole body felt the pain.

Why else would Pakistani fighter pilots come to blows with each other, over who gets to go fight the Israelis during the Arab-Israeli wars? And they kicked some serious Israeli ****, achieved a 100% kill ratio(destroyed every aircraft encountered without loosing any of their own), and freaked the Israelis enough that they tried to get Punjabi(alot like Urdu, but local dialect) speaking Sikhs to guide the Pakistani pilots to land in Israeli occupied territory. SHAHBAZ OVER GOLAN
- The saga of an intrepid PAF pilot who humbled the Israelis


Why else did Muslims from Arabia, Turkiye, African, Indonesia, convert Muslims from everywhere from South America to Europe, come to Afghanistan in the 80's when the Afghans were attacked by a vastly superior superpower?

Arabs are to be respected because The Prophet(PBUH) was bestowed upon them. Aggrandizing Muslim history as the heirloom of any one tiny area, is misguided.
 
Arabs are to be respected because The Prophet(PBUH) was bestowed upon them.

All races & ethnicities are equal in Islam & in the eyes of God. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) must always be respected & loved by all of us Muslims, however that does not make it a requirement to respect Arabs.

If that was true then the children of Israel must also be respected at all costs because many prophets (may peace be upon them) descended from among them.

Keep in mind that it isn't good to be disrespectful towards any race or ethnicity whether they are Arabs, Hebrews, Persians, etc. A Muslim must love & respect every Prophet of God all the way from Prophet Adam till Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon both of them).
 
Arabs are to be respected because The Prophet(PBUH) was bestowed upon them. Aggrandizing Muslim history as the heirloom of any one tiny area, is misguided.

There is no concept of choosen people in Islam neither racial purity or superiority otherwise we will all end up worshiping the Jews due to Abrahimic lineage from where all the prophet came. These kind of ridiculous statements are often heard from hari pagre walays!

Islam has preached equality otherwise we would not have personalities like Bilal Habshi and Salman Farsi!
 
Arabs are to be respected because The Prophet(PBUH) was bestowed upon them. Aggrandizing Muslim history as the heirloom of any one tiny area, is misguided.

Excuse me? Prophet Mohammed's last sermon? Rings any bell?:azn:

Last but not least, it is God who judges who is misguided and who is not. You are not God nor do you hold the stature to make such judgment.
 
Why did the Arabs attack Eastern Roman-Byzantine Empire? What the provocation for the battle of Yarmoulk?
 
You have just come up with five inventions by Indians...!

Show me your history, show me your achievements, you have non... in the other thread you considred Indians and Arab rule of Sindh part of your history!:rofl:

A lot of Indian heritage is shared heritage of India and Pakistan.Pakistan could claim on it.Pakistan simply don't do it as that is heritage is intertwined with Hindu culture.Stories from Vedas which are considered as religious text by Hindus also serve as a historical repository of technological and political achievement of it's times.It is uncomfortable for a Pakistani to own that up since the very foundation of Pakistan is on the basis of Islam but if they want they could lay joint claim on at least north Indian history.

Another peculiarity is that apart from Kushan empire,most of the Empires in India were centred around the landmass deep down in today's India mostly in state of Bihar and Eastern UP ans Pakistan was usually at fringe so if even if the claim that,it would result in them studying history of people who are 1000Km away from them.




Anyway anyone claiming Arab history for subcontinent is laughable.Arab rule was at its peak in India was restricted to a couple of districts in Sindh and did not lasted even for half a century.here is the aftermath of battle that you have posted

Battle of Rajasthan​
The Battle of Rajasthan is a battle (or series of battles) where the Indian alliance defeated the Arab invaders in 738 CE and removed the arab . The final battle took place somewhere on the borders of modern Sindh-Rajasthan. Following their defeat the remnants of the Arab army fled to the other bank of the River Indus. The Muslim conquest of Persia by Arab forces in a short space of time contrasts sharply to the defeat of the Arab armies by the Hindus.

Background

With the break-up of the Gupta Empire (550 CE), northern India was covered with warring states, which attempted to wrest the imperial position left vacant by the Guptas. Among these were Yasodharman of Malwa, the Maitrakas of Vallabhi, and Harshvardhan of Thanesar. But a stable empire in the north was only established by the Gurjara Pratiharas of the Rajasthan-Gujarat-Malwa region by 750 CE, which lasted for over a century.

Before the onset of this age West Asia was conquered by the politico-religious ideology of Islam (7th Century). Under the Umayyad Caliphs the Muslim Arabs attempted to conquer the frontier kingdoms of India; Kabul, Zabul, and Sindh, but were repulsed. In the early 8th Century the Kingdom of Sindh under Rajput King Dahir of the Rai dynasty was convulsed by internal strife——taking advantage of the conditions the Arabs renewed their assaults and finally occupied it under Muhammad bin Qasim, the nephew of Al-Hajjaj (governor of Iraq and Khurasan). Qasim and his successors attempted to expand from Sindh into Punjab and other regions but were badly defeated by Lalitaditya of Kashmir and Yasovarman of Kannauj. Even their position in Sindh was unstable at this time. Arab forces failed to make any substantial gains in India.


Events leading up to the battle

Junaid ibn Abdur-Rahman al-Marri, the successor of Muhammad bin Qasim, finally subdued the Hindu resistance within Sindh. Taking advantage of the conditions in Western India, which at that time was covered with several small states, Junaid led a large army into the region in early 730 CE. Dividing this force into two he plundered several cities in southern Rajasthan, western Malwa, and Gujarat.
Indian inscriptions confirm this invasion but record the Arab success only against the smaller states in Gujarat. They also record the defeat of the Arabs at two places. The southern army moving south into Gujarat was defeated at Navsari by Avanijanashraya Pulakesi who was sent by the South Indian Emperor Vikramaditya II of the Chalukya Empire. The army that went east, reached Avanti whose ruler Gurjara Pratihara Nagabhata utterly defeated the invaders and they fled to save their life.

The Battle of Rajasthan

When Emir Junaid invaded Rajasthan with his forces, Gurjara Pratihara ruler Nagabhata I made an alliance with the Chalukya governor of Lata, Jayasimha Varman, who was a brother of King Vikramaditya II. In response Jayasimha Varman sent his son Avanijanashraya Pulakesi to support Nagabhata I.

Aftermath

Junaid's successor Tamim bin Zaid al-Utbi organized a fresh campaigns against Rajasthan but failed to hold any territories there. He would be further pushed across River Indus by the combined forces of the King of Kannauj, Yaso Varman C.E. thus limiting the Arabs to the territory of Sindh across River Indus.
In the words of the Arab chronicler Suleiman, “a place of refuge to which the Muslims might flee was not to be found.” The Arabs crossed over to the other side of the River Indus, abandoning all their lands to the victorious Gurjars. The local chieftains took advantage of these conditions to re-establish their independence. Subsequently the Arabs constructed the city of Mansurah on the other side of the wide and deep Indus, which was safe from attack. This became their new capital in Sindh.

Equipment and resources

In the Gwalior inscription it is recorded that Nagabhatta “crushed the large army of the powerful Mlechcha king.” This large army consisted of cavalry, infantry, siege artillery, and probably a force of camels. Since Tamin was a new governor he had a force of Syrian cavalry from Damascus, local Arab contingents, converted Hindus of Sindh, and foreign mercenaries like the Turks. All together the invading army have had anywhere between 30,000-40,000 men. In comparison the Rajputs had only 5000-6,000 cavalry.
The Arab chronicler Suleiman describes the army of the Imperial Gurjara Pratiharas as it stood in 851 CE; The king of Gurjars maintains numerous forces and no other Indian prince has so fine a cavalry. He is unfriendly to the Arabs, still he acknowledges that the king of the Arabs is the greatest of kings. Among the princes of India there is no greater foe of the Islamic faith than he. He has got riches, and his camels and horses are numerous.
But at the time of the Battle of Rajasthan the Gurjar Pratihars had only just risen to power. In fact Nagabhatta was their first prominent ruler. But the composition of his army, which was predominantly cavalry, is clear from the description. There are other anecdotal references to the Indian kings and commanders riding elephants to have a clear view of the battlefield. The infantry stood behind the elephants and the cavalry formed the wings and advanced guard.

Later events

The Arabs in Sindh took a long time to recover from their defeat. In the early 9th Century the governor Bashar attempted an invasion of India but was defeated. Even a naval expedition sent by the Caliphs was defeated by the Saindhava clan of Kathiawar. After this the Arab chroniclers admit that the Caliph Mahdi, “gave up the project of conquering any part of India'.”
The Arabs in Sindh lost all power and broke up into two warring Shia states of Mansurah and Multan, both of which paid tribute to the Gurjara Pratiharas. The local resistance in Sindh, which had not yet died out and was inspired by the victories of their Rajput neighbors manifested itself when the foreign rulers were overthrown and Sindh came under its own Muslim Rajputs dynasties like the Soomras and Sammas.

Battle of Rajasthan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article is not written professionally but is quite correct in it's factual contures.


There are more Arabs in India which migrated to India to escape the genocide Genghis Khan and Hulagu Khan had unleashed in middle east than who came as invaders.
 
Well, considering the success of Roman, Mongol, etc. armies through history, you would have to believe in their gods too...(if you buy the whole gods give victory). I would say morale (new religion, fanatical believers), along with a large calvary force (the Mongols also used light mobile forces, the "blitzkreig" of the day)

Exactly my logic..

Much of the concept of Jihad in islam draws lines on Arab tribal and nomadic culture. That is invading foreign lands and bringing war bounty. Something exactly what the pagan era Arabs used to do by making constant raids across the trade routes of Syria and Persia..

Secondly, a much small Israel spanked the brains out of Arabs so it could be argued that God is on Israel side which once again validates their entire "choosen people" claim.


Religion back in the day was a political force much like ideologies of today. Soviet Union invaded to spread socialism and USA invaded to spread democracy. So it can be argued that socialism and democracy are also religions of 21st century. Ironically sane and level headed leaders who think with common sense and not religious cues tend to be far more sucessfull. No God's play here.
:blah::blah:
When 3,000 defeat 200,000 that means God was on our side.
Jihad is Islamic, its very much encourage in the Qur'an, nothing to do with Arabic culture. Then again, no one expects anything from morally defeated people. At the end of the day, you owe your salvation in the after life to them. Partially.

Abu Kamel al Haseb was Egyptian..again a country only linguistically Arab
Only linguistically Arab!!
Arabism is a language/culture, we don't have your race/genetics obsessions. Its prohibited in Islam. Finally, if Arabs only had Mohammed(PBUH) then that's enough to put us heads and shoulder above any body else.
Also, don't forget that you and the Iranians are originally Arabs:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/180516-study-arabia-origin-humanity.html
 
Coming back to the battle it highlighted what a great general Khalid Bin Walid was. So decisively defeating the Byzantine army with a numerically and qualitatively inferior army of his own was a great achievement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom