Battle of Yarmouk

[Banu Umayyah]

Self delete.

 

[Kambojaric]

I would urge all Pakistanis and Arabs to use your brains before posting please. Getting all emotional and calling each other all sorts of bad names will only reflect badly upon your countries whilst the rest of the world laughs at you. Grow up please

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Last time I recall, If it wasn't for Arabs, India would have nuked you already. So, you owe your existence to us. We just use Pakistan for dirty jobs like killing civilians in Bahrain and so on, but even in that you showed you incompetence. You are so incompetent that you gave up your own land for protection and lost half of your country to India. While Israel, has nukes as the only advantage.

Calm down brother, I was angry with Sombozo, it seems I still. Anyway, plz don't make the same mistakes I made, we are brothers after all. I urged the Mods to delete all off-topic posts here.

 

[Banu Umayyah]

Ungrateful and Despotic rulers:

personal preferences always making a priority over talent and caliber.
Treating their men and subjects like cattle and property - a trait which continues today and some people are so engulfed into this system that they accept their life of a sheep!

For comparison purpose, Greeks invented democracy 4000 years ago. Why would I knowingly subscribe a governing system where the sword of my own Khalifa will be used against me - and there are plenty of events as such in the history. So don't deny it!

Death

Muhammad bin Qasim had begun preparations for further expansions when Hajjaj died, as did Caliph Al-Walid I, who was succeeded by Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, who then took revenge against all who had been close to Hajjaj. Sulayman owed political support to opponents of Hajjaj and so recalled both of Hajjaj's successful generals Qutaibah bin Muslim and Qasim. He also appointed Yazid ibn al-Muhallab, once tortured by Hajjaj and a son of Al Muhallab ibn Abi Suffrah, as the governor of Fars, Kirman, Makran, and Sindh; he immediately placed Qasim in chains.


There are two different accounts regarding the details of Qasim's fate:


The account from the Chachnama narrates a tale in which Qasims demise is attributed to the daughters of King Dahir who had been taken captive during the campaign. Upon capture they had been sent on as presents to the Khalifa for his harem. The account relates that they then tricked the Khalifa into believing that Muhammad bin Qasim had violated them before sending them on and as a result of this subterfuge, Muhammad bin Qasim was wrapped in oxen hides,[22] and returned to Syria, which resulted in his death en route from suffocation. This narrative attributes their motive for this subterfuge to securing vengeance for their father's death. Upon discovering this subterfuge, the Khalifa is recorded to have been filled with remorse and ordered the sisters buried alive in a wall.


The Persian historian Baladhuri, however, states that the new Khalifa was a political enemy of Umayyad ex-governor Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, Muhammad bin Qasim’s paternal uncle and thus persecuted all those who were considered close to Hajjaj. Muhammad bin Qasim was therefore recalled in the midst of a campaign of capturing more territory up north. Upon arrival, he was howevere promptly imprisoned in Mosul, (in modern day Iraq) and subjected to torture, resulting in his death.[4][24]
Whichever account is true, is unknown. What is known however is that he was 20 years old when he was killed by his own Caliph. None have read the tombstone marking his grave for none know where he lies.
Muhammad bin Qasim had a son named Amr bin Muhammad who later became governor of Sindh.

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

Bounty of war, nothing wrong with that.

 

[The SC]

@anonymous

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that historical frontier of India lie between Kabul-Kandahar-Ghazni line thus incorporating Pakistan and 20% of Afghanistan in India.

I do not know what YOU call India, but based on historical facts the area you are describing is in the Indus valley, just south-east of Iran.

 

[Banu Umayyah]

Calm down brother, I was angry with Sombozo, it seems I still. Anyway, plz don't make the same mistakes I made, we are brothers after all. I urged the Mods to delete all off-topic posts here.

I am not angry, just dropping knowledge bombs on the uneducated

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

 

[Banu Umayyah]

......................

 

[shuntmaster]

Why did the Arabs attack Eastern Roman-Byzantine Empire? What the provocation for the battle of Yarmoulk?

Was it a unilateral war of aggression by the muslims against non-believer kafirs in the name of Jihad?
Muslims claim all their wars were in self-defence. How is battle of Yamoulk defined?

Bounty of war, nothing wrong with that.

Is it OK if US takes over the middle-eastern oil wells as bounty of war?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Bounty of war, nothing wrong with that.

A few districts of sindh thanks to a traitor...later gettin killed and pushed back..... Atleast im proud to say our ancestors were honourable people... even treated enemies with respect... we have a glorious ancient history... arabs to be honest have nothing to show excluding the tales of the successes and rules of Hazrat Mohammad Saw and sahabas.... killing baby girls,getting defeated by persians,romans,ottomans etc...

A Proud Pakistani Baluch...

INDUS CIVILISATION
HARRAPAN CIVILISATION
GHANDHARA CIVILISATION
MEHRGARH CIVILISATION

Is it OK if US takes over the middle-eastern oil wells as bounty of war?

LOL..........

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Battle of Yarmouk should inspire Muslims of current generation. Outnumbered, ill-equipped and fighting in foreign turf, the Muslim armies still decimated the enemies with ease thanks to the Grace of Allah (SWT), only because the Muslims fought for the true cause, not what Muslims do now. Nowadays, most Muslims are fighting for some "country" or political union based on language, or created by Britain, and fighting for some secular dictator fighting for ethnic or racial causes.

 

[shuntmaster]

Battle of Yarmouk should inspire Muslims of current generation. Outnumbered, ill-equipped and fighting in foreign turf, the Muslim armies still decimated the enemies with ease thanks to the Grace of Allah (SWT), only because the Muslims fought for the true cause, not what Muslims do now. Nowadays, most Muslims are fighting for some "country" or political union based on language, or created by Britain, and fighting for some secular dictator fighting for ethnic or racial causes.

Why were the muslims so compelled to fight this battle against all odds? What were they fighting for? What was the 'true cause' that you mention? Does the same motivation apply to muslims today too?

 

[Banu Umayyah]

A few districts of sindh thanks to a traitor...later gettin killed and pushed back..... Atleast im proud to say our ancestors were honourable people... even treated enemies with respect... we have a glorious ancient history... arabs to be honest have nothing to show excluding the tales of the successes and rules of Hazrat Mohammad Saw and sahabas.... killing baby girls,getting defeated by persians,romans,ottomans etc...

A Proud Pakistani Baluch...

INDUS CIVILISATION
HARRAPAN CIVILISATION
GHANDHARA CIVILISATION
MEHRGARH CIVILISATION



LOL..........

WTF, what does that have to do with anything.

 

[The SC]

i agree with you but this battle was different. why would the byzantine emperor just send 50,000 soldiers when the fate of entire kingdom(syria) was dependent on the outcome of this battle. i mean Jerusalem plus Antioch the two most important cities in Christianity and to protect those cities they could only master 50K? while xerxex from persian empire could bring 1 million against 300 over 1000 years ago.

just tell this "rational" guy, to read the beginning of the article, where it is stated that it was an expedition otherwise a Christian crusade against Islam, and to read about its composition, than he can believe what he wants.

@Anonymous

but in modern records,competing claims are cross checked and strength is calculated based on revenue productivity and carrying capacity of a state and if possible correct figure is reached after comparing different accounts....

Which one did they calculate? and based on contemporary times any contemporary can put the figures as he wishes to, while the Muslim scholars had no reason to lie, either for promoting Islam or otherwise, it is against the fundamental principles of Islam which is truth.

 

[AUz]

Was it a unilateral war of aggression by the muslims against non-believer kafirs in the name of Jihad?

No , it wasn't a unilateral war of aggression. In the name of Jihad? Please , get some knowledge before speaking. The Jihad , as we know it today , didn't arise UNTIL the time of Nur-ud-deen Zangi. Read up on that more.

Muslims claim all their wars were in self-defence.

Offcourse they were...unless you believe "youtube scholars" or "FFI scholars" to be more qualified and authentic than actual academics like Karen Armstrong , Bernard Lewis , John L Esposito etc etc ..

How is battle of Yamoulk defined?

A decisive battle which saved Islam and made it clear that now Islam would go outside of Arabia. Roman cruelty , power, and hegemony was over. Arabs had arrived on the world scene for the first time !

You know that who started hostilities? don't you? When Muslim representatives , who went for invitation to Islam , were killed , against ALL the traditions of desert/tribal hospitality of that time?

Is it OK if US takes over the middle-eastern oil wells as bounty of war?

LOL