A masterpiece Column of Javed Chaudhry "ASAL SIKANDAR-E-AZAM"
- Thread starter Hammad Shah
- Start date
pakistan_pak
MPA (400+ posts)
not ignorance but ignorance of ignorace is death of knowledge.
Silly comparison.
Hazrat Umar is a religious character as far as Islam is concerned, so many of his "qualities" owe themselves to sources that are Muslim and religiously affiliated. We can't take Muslim sources as serious historical sources about Hazrat Umar because those sources are religious in nature and not strictly historical.
Thus if we to compare him with any other personality of the world, we must use the neutral historical account of both, and not Islamic "history" - as the later is the history of the victors. And we must judge them both by universal moral standards and not by moral standards of any faith.
Secondly, for many Hazrat Umar's great "justice" would be questionable. For example, it is recorded even in Islamic history, that he imposed Jaziya on minority populations and forbade Christians and Jews from building or restoring their places of worship. Certainly, that is not a trait that would be commendable in any way from a nuetral point of view. (Alexander on the other hand did not interfere with the religious practices of other people).
Thirdly, Alexander the great did not expand out in the name of a religious ideology and as such was not involved in converting local population or spreading any faith - ie, proselytizing. Had he done so, who knows we might have been speaking Greek and worshiping Zeus?
Implying that, since there are over a billion Muslims in this word who worship "God of Umar", he must be greater than the one whose God is not worshiped by as many, is an argument which is not objective but subjective to one's religious faith. To a non-Muslim, it doesn't matter, at best, and is problematic at worse (those who think Islamic beliefs lead to violence).
Forthly, all the modern system of governmence and institutions present in the world today, which the author mistakenly credits to Umar, have their origin in the western world, after Ranisence and Englishment, inspired by the ancient Greek culture and city state (not by "Khilafat-e-Rashida") - a view unanimously held by all the credible historians.
Fifthy, Alexander the Great had many positive influences in the world. He introduced Greek philosophical concepts and culture to Asia, he encouraged intermarriages between Greeks and Persians, thus encouraging cultural harmony. One of his great achievements include setting up a university at Alexandria, which was the center of science and learning in the ancient world. He took great interest in spreading knowledge. As mentioned, he did not interfere with the beliefs of the local populations and did force any religion on them.
As regards to the "size" of the empire, Alexander died just at a very young age, as the author notes. He had plans to go deep into Africa and farther east. Who knows what his empire would look like had he lived as many years as Umar?
Thus independent historical account does in no way leads to the conclusions that the author is wishing to make.
Yes, invite all historians to look into this matter, but have the patience and courage to bear what they have to say. Can we do that? That's the main question.
Hazrat Umar is a religious character as far as Islam is concerned, so many of his "qualities" owe themselves to sources that are Muslim and religiously affiliated. We can't take Muslim sources as serious historical sources about Hazrat Umar because those sources are religious in nature and not strictly historical.
Thus if we to compare him with any other personality of the world, we must use the neutral historical account of both, and not Islamic "history" - as the later is the history of the victors. And we must judge them both by universal moral standards and not by moral standards of any faith.
Secondly, for many Hazrat Umar's great "justice" would be questionable. For example, it is recorded even in Islamic history, that he imposed Jaziya on minority populations and forbade Christians and Jews from building or restoring their places of worship. Certainly, that is not a trait that would be commendable in any way from a nuetral point of view. (Alexander on the other hand did not interfere with the religious practices of other people).
Thirdly, Alexander the great did not expand out in the name of a religious ideology and as such was not involved in converting local population or spreading any faith - ie, proselytizing. Had he done so, who knows we might have been speaking Greek and worshiping Zeus?
Implying that, since there are over a billion Muslims in this word who worship "God of Umar", he must be greater than the one whose God is not worshiped by as many, is an argument which is not objective but subjective to one's religious faith. To a non-Muslim, it doesn't matter, at best, and is problematic at worse (those who think Islamic beliefs lead to violence).
Forthly, all the modern system of governmence and institutions present in the world today, which the author mistakenly credits to Umar, have their origin in the western world, after Ranisence and Englishment, inspired by the ancient Greek culture and city state (not by "Khilafat-e-Rashida") - a view unanimously held by all the credible historians.
Fifthy, Alexander the Great had many positive influences in the world. He introduced Greek philosophical concepts and culture to Asia, he encouraged intermarriages between Greeks and Persians, thus encouraging cultural harmony. One of his great achievements include setting up a university at Alexandria, which was the center of science and learning in the ancient world. He took great interest in spreading knowledge. As mentioned, he did not interfere with the beliefs of the local populations and did force any religion on them.
As regards to the "size" of the empire, Alexander died just at a very young age, as the author notes. He had plans to go deep into Africa and farther east. Who knows what his empire would look like had he lived as many years as Umar?
Thus independent historical account does in no way leads to the conclusions that the author is wishing to make.
Yes, invite all historians to look into this matter, but have the patience and courage to bear what they have to say. Can we do that? That's the main question.
shaheedchoudry
Minister (2k+ posts)
Khush raho. Razi raho. Zinda e javer raho. You have won the debate and we have lost. Keep on believing what you were told by some one. And never try to verify.
awan4ever
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Please visit the "Western Views" section of the wikipedia entry on Umar bin Khattab r.a.
Jaziya is a pratice common to all Muslim rulers as it is prescribed in the Islamic teachings and it wasnt the Caliphs personally thought up tax. You can argue the demerits of the Jaziya tax but do that in context of Islamic beliefs as a whole and not as something that Umar did in his rule.
Please read the conquest of Jerusalem and how the Jews were treated and how their places of worship were protected. Also see the conquest of Egypt. A land full of statues proclaiming Pharaohs as gods. None were destroyed or harmed. There are no proven instances of anyone being forced to convert under the threat of sword.
We can argue that but lets just I say I agree with you, however these very systems were being employed in the caliphate of Umar. Something that was novel at the time and never heard of before in the region atleast. Or do you deny that any such systems ever existed under Umar and that it is all a sham?
Pity that you dont see the positive influences of a man who came out of no kingly heritage and yet conquered more land than a son of a king, lived his life in utter humility unlike the Great Guy whose self aggrandizing exploits are well known. You see no greatness in a mans achievements which resonate in the world to this day but you have a keen eye for someone whose empire folded within a few years of his death.
Umar r.a. believed in consolidating power. He wanted to build and implement systems within his Caliphate so that his subjects would stay content and not revolt. Incidently I dont think there were any revolts in his rule. Secondly you forget that the total ruling time of both men is almost the same. I could say that had Umar not been assassinated he would have conquered more lands as well. We know for a fact from "neutral" historians that Alexanders army refused to go forward from India so I doubt he would have marched anywhere further with such reluctant soldiers no matter what his personal plans but in Umars case as the writer noted that not once did anyone object when he removed his most powerful general or governors from their posts and had the arrested even. I think Umars plans and his subjects loyalty to him were much more strong than those of the Macedonian Kings.
You seem to be very certain that there has never been any independent historical verification of Umars deeds. Are you very sure of this?
Dude .... if you can't even see the meaning of a simple statement...I am sure it will be very hard for you to convince the rest of us with facts. Get your facts together and then come back for debate. Alexander ... a prophet ... Naozobillah ... What have you been smoking my friend?
Mansoor Khan
Senator (1k+ posts)
my brothers
well bro javed u should not be stubborn in ur ideas for a prophet it is fact that he should have characteristics of prophets not pagans so in this case alexander is disqualified if u read cyrus they show him in his status as someone who wore such a helmet that had horn types and qarn also means ages so if u study he was in transition stages where u could see him in different ages like a ruler of persia goes for the babylonia they were different civilisations. at least u should make research on this point of view and then think when u have many options. if u dont want to believe then Allah bless u. brother watch sheikh imran husain lectures on youtube about these incidents on bani israel and caliphate and end of times u l come to know about all of these.
as for my another brothers who had other discussions about touheen i risalat and other topics i would like to say that this is a totally informative thread one of the bro asked questions and we r trying to answer it so from where come the point of touheen i risalat. y u people make wrong and negative judgements y u dont see it as an informative discussion coz all of us can learn from this discussions. and another brother said it is a siasi forum. so brother my answer is same it is a place where we can have some positive and informative discussions where all get to learn and get some good knowledge so my message for everyone is plz plz the educated community plz perceive positively coz no difference remains between the educated and the uneducated if we r to behave in the same manner
thanks brother and friends
and once again positive attitude is what we need for changing the country and society
May Allah bless us all and forgive our sins and help my country
ma'salama wa fi amanullah
Mansoor khan
well bro javed u should not be stubborn in ur ideas for a prophet it is fact that he should have characteristics of prophets not pagans so in this case alexander is disqualified if u read cyrus they show him in his status as someone who wore such a helmet that had horn types and qarn also means ages so if u study he was in transition stages where u could see him in different ages like a ruler of persia goes for the babylonia they were different civilisations. at least u should make research on this point of view and then think when u have many options. if u dont want to believe then Allah bless u. brother watch sheikh imran husain lectures on youtube about these incidents on bani israel and caliphate and end of times u l come to know about all of these.
as for my another brothers who had other discussions about touheen i risalat and other topics i would like to say that this is a totally informative thread one of the bro asked questions and we r trying to answer it so from where come the point of touheen i risalat. y u people make wrong and negative judgements y u dont see it as an informative discussion coz all of us can learn from this discussions. and another brother said it is a siasi forum. so brother my answer is same it is a place where we can have some positive and informative discussions where all get to learn and get some good knowledge so my message for everyone is plz plz the educated community plz perceive positively coz no difference remains between the educated and the uneducated if we r to behave in the same manner
thanks brother and friends
and once again positive attitude is what we need for changing the country and society
May Allah bless us all and forgive our sins and help my country
ma'salama wa fi amanullah
Mansoor khan
zeshaan
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
[HI][/HI]Have found something,i am posting here,may bee itcan guide us in right dtrection.
pluto
12-10-2010, 06:06 PM
S/w.
Approximately three hundred years before Masih (Hadrath Isaa A. S), there was a king known as Sikandar (Alexander). He is identified with the appellations of the Greek, the Macedonian, the Roman etc. He was the one who had Aristotle (Arastu) as his minister, who fought a war against (Darius) and who conquered his country after killing him. This was the very last person to have become known in the world by the name Sikandar (Alexander). Stories relating to him are comparatively more famous around the world, so some people have also equated him with the Dhul-Qarnain mentioned in the Quran. This is totally wrong because this person was a fire-worshipping polytheist. As for the Dhul-Qarnain mentioned by the Qur'an,[HI] he may not be a prophet for 'Ulama' have differed about his being a prophet.[/HI] But, everyone unanimously agrees that he was a righteous believer - then, there is the textual authority of the Qur'an in its own right which bears testimony to it.
The above words were of a scholar of Darul Uloom Deoband, basically, most of the Ulemas' believe that the 'Zulqarnain' mentioned in the Holy Quran is NOT 'Alexander The Great' (the more famous guy)... this fellow was a polythiest and I was wrong, thanks, this way I too got to know the truth. But, do remember, there is some degree of disagreement, but very very little.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-64088.html
pluto
12-10-2010, 06:06 PM
S/w.
Approximately three hundred years before Masih (Hadrath Isaa A. S), there was a king known as Sikandar (Alexander). He is identified with the appellations of the Greek, the Macedonian, the Roman etc. He was the one who had Aristotle (Arastu) as his minister, who fought a war against (Darius) and who conquered his country after killing him. This was the very last person to have become known in the world by the name Sikandar (Alexander). Stories relating to him are comparatively more famous around the world, so some people have also equated him with the Dhul-Qarnain mentioned in the Quran. This is totally wrong because this person was a fire-worshipping polytheist. As for the Dhul-Qarnain mentioned by the Qur'an,[HI] he may not be a prophet for 'Ulama' have differed about his being a prophet.[/HI] But, everyone unanimously agrees that he was a righteous believer - then, there is the textual authority of the Qur'an in its own right which bears testimony to it.
The above words were of a scholar of Darul Uloom Deoband, basically, most of the Ulemas' believe that the 'Zulqarnain' mentioned in the Holy Quran is NOT 'Alexander The Great' (the more famous guy)... this fellow was a polythiest and I was wrong, thanks, this way I too got to know the truth. But, do remember, there is some degree of disagreement, but very very little.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-64088.html
Last edited:
identicalguy
Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
MashaAllah great article and ofcourse there is no comparison between alexander and Hazrat Umar (R.A)
My humble opinion for Javed being stubborn is our attitude. We all of a sudden start hurling insults at a person who isn't holding the opinion according to our own beliefs. Be them the minutest still they hurt a person and fuel his ego.
And my humble opinion upon the word zulqarnain, I would again say that we have limited understanding of things. When we read it all and think hard upon it which I have been for over many months now (only a few verses), it is not about this earth only. The place, the black pond where the sun sets can't be upon this planet earth but a place like a black hole or the super black hole where suns are destroyed and born, anyway, still working upon it so don't have a definitive answer.
About the comparison in this article, no comparison at all.
About the article itself, a great article.
And my humble opinion upon the word zulqarnain, I would again say that we have limited understanding of things. When we read it all and think hard upon it which I have been for over many months now (only a few verses), it is not about this earth only. The place, the black pond where the sun sets can't be upon this planet earth but a place like a black hole or the super black hole where suns are destroyed and born, anyway, still working upon it so don't have a definitive answer.
About the comparison in this article, no comparison at all.
About the article itself, a great article.
TruPakistani
Minister (2k+ posts)
Your wrong brother, King Zulqarnain mentioned is Surah Kahf is not the Alexander of Macedonia.
