A masterpiece Column of Javed Chaudhry "ASAL SIKANDAR-E-AZAM"
- Thread starter Hammad Shah
- Start date
Hammad Shah
Councller (250+ posts)
An extraordinary work.......... i am unable to comment......
alibaba222
Minister (2k+ posts)
:mash::jazak: Allah hamey 1 or Umer ata farma jo is qoom ke halat badal saky
raja jaber mehmood
Citizen
oh my GOD.i dont know what to say.believe me i am just speechless.
crankthskunk
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Real History needed
Good article, this kind of smack is needed for that idiot Hasan Nisar. Sorry guys, I know I repeat this all the time. But that idiot really bothers me a lot. Like Javed wrote, he is amongst those misguided fools, who try to twist the history to make his point. The reality is different, completely different indeed.
Hasan Nisar reads the history written by his masters, who always have a twist attach to it, according to their own plans and point of view.
For example he talks about the industrial progress of the west, but if he looks at the history carefully, that progress only came after the western European countries started to colonise the world. Before their conquest their era is called Dark Ages. They were living in dark ages, without much amenities and in poverty and disease ridden life.
How did the conquest come about? They also spread this misconception that Islam is spread with sword. Nothing further from the truth. If it was spread with sword, the result would have been the same like what happened to the empire created by Alexander, it crumbled with in years after his death.
The reality of the Conquest started in the era of Hadarat Umer Farooq RA is that people accepted Islam due to its teachings and appeals, and they are still Muslims after 1400 years. If you take the examples of Pakistan, how many people complaints about the Islam and considered themselves as conquered people? I know there are few slaves who consider Dahar as their hero, but we all know what their agenda and thinking is.
The matter of fact is the British Empire, French empire, Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire were created on the power of Gun Powder which gave them the advantage over the natives. But look at the reality, their period is known as the period of slavery, looting the national wealth from the conquered countries. Thats how the progress was achieved and they become wealthy and industrial revolution started. Even though the gun powder was invented by the Chinese centuries before the European and was used by them against the invading Mongols. Later the Mongols in turn used it against other countries. Even the Muslims had the technology around 1248 AD, before or same time the European did. The difference is that the European started to produce it in vast quantities for their conquests. They worked on the ratios of its ingredients, worked on the use of dry gun powder, giving the edge in their conquests of the world.
Hasan Nisar needs to read the real history, not the concoctions created by his masters. That mental slave of the west.
Good article, this kind of smack is needed for that idiot Hasan Nisar. Sorry guys, I know I repeat this all the time. But that idiot really bothers me a lot. Like Javed wrote, he is amongst those misguided fools, who try to twist the history to make his point. The reality is different, completely different indeed.
Hasan Nisar reads the history written by his masters, who always have a twist attach to it, according to their own plans and point of view.
For example he talks about the industrial progress of the west, but if he looks at the history carefully, that progress only came after the western European countries started to colonise the world. Before their conquest their era is called Dark Ages. They were living in dark ages, without much amenities and in poverty and disease ridden life.
How did the conquest come about? They also spread this misconception that Islam is spread with sword. Nothing further from the truth. If it was spread with sword, the result would have been the same like what happened to the empire created by Alexander, it crumbled with in years after his death.
The reality of the Conquest started in the era of Hadarat Umer Farooq RA is that people accepted Islam due to its teachings and appeals, and they are still Muslims after 1400 years. If you take the examples of Pakistan, how many people complaints about the Islam and considered themselves as conquered people? I know there are few slaves who consider Dahar as their hero, but we all know what their agenda and thinking is.
The matter of fact is the British Empire, French empire, Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire were created on the power of Gun Powder which gave them the advantage over the natives. But look at the reality, their period is known as the period of slavery, looting the national wealth from the conquered countries. Thats how the progress was achieved and they become wealthy and industrial revolution started. Even though the gun powder was invented by the Chinese centuries before the European and was used by them against the invading Mongols. Later the Mongols in turn used it against other countries. Even the Muslims had the technology around 1248 AD, before or same time the European did. The difference is that the European started to produce it in vast quantities for their conquests. They worked on the ratios of its ingredients, worked on the use of dry gun powder, giving the edge in their conquests of the world.
Hasan Nisar needs to read the real history, not the concoctions created by his masters. That mental slave of the west.
IT IS NOT A GOOD COMPARISON.
ALEXANDAR WAS A PROPHET OF ALLAH. HIS NAME IN QURAAN IS 'ZUL-QURNAIN'.
ALLAH DOES NOT ALLOW THAT A COMPARISON BE DRAWN BETWEEN A PROPHT AND A PROPHET
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A COMPARISON BE DRAWN BETWEEN A PROPHET AND A COMPANION OF A PROPHET.
ALL PROPHETS ARE EXHIBITS OF ALLAH AND WHATEVER THEY DO THEY DO NOT DO OF THEIR OWN BUT WITH THE FULL SUPPORT AND POWER OF ALLAH BEHIND THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF GLORIFYING THE NAME OF ALLAH IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PERIOD OF TIME.
QURAAN SAYS '[ALLAH (SWT)] DOES NOT MAKE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY ONE OF HIS PROPHETS'.
MIRICLES TAKES PLACE AT THE HANDS OF PROPHETS BECAUSE THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF GOD.
iT IS NOT GOOD THAT ONE SHOULD MAKE A COMPARISON BETWEEN A MIRICLE AND THE ACTS OF A COMPANION OF OUR PROPHET THOUGH WE BELIEVE HAZRAT UMAR HAD THE SUPPORT OF ALLAH (SWT) BUT I AM SORRY TO SAY THIS SUPPORT DID NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF THE OBJECTIVES BY WHICH ALLAH (SWT) HAD BEEN SENDING HIS PROPHETS TO THE MANKIND.
ALEXANDAR WAS A PROPHET OF ALLAH. HIS NAME IN QURAAN IS 'ZUL-QURNAIN'.
ALLAH DOES NOT ALLOW THAT A COMPARISON BE DRAWN BETWEEN A PROPHT AND A PROPHET
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A COMPARISON BE DRAWN BETWEEN A PROPHET AND A COMPANION OF A PROPHET.
ALL PROPHETS ARE EXHIBITS OF ALLAH AND WHATEVER THEY DO THEY DO NOT DO OF THEIR OWN BUT WITH THE FULL SUPPORT AND POWER OF ALLAH BEHIND THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF GLORIFYING THE NAME OF ALLAH IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PERIOD OF TIME.
QURAAN SAYS '[ALLAH (SWT)] DOES NOT MAKE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY ONE OF HIS PROPHETS'.
MIRICLES TAKES PLACE AT THE HANDS OF PROPHETS BECAUSE THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF GOD.
iT IS NOT GOOD THAT ONE SHOULD MAKE A COMPARISON BETWEEN A MIRICLE AND THE ACTS OF A COMPANION OF OUR PROPHET THOUGH WE BELIEVE HAZRAT UMAR HAD THE SUPPORT OF ALLAH (SWT) BUT I AM SORRY TO SAY THIS SUPPORT DID NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF THE OBJECTIVES BY WHICH ALLAH (SWT) HAD BEEN SENDING HIS PROPHETS TO THE MANKIND.
Last edited:
shaheedchoudry
Minister (2k+ posts)
Bhai Jaan Mind na karna. Aap ki education k baray main curious hoon. Kahan tak taleem hasil ki aur kahan kahan sey?
shaheedchoudry
Minister (2k+ posts)
Okay, now let me explain it to you. Alexander the great who conquered about 56 countries was a warrrior and not a prophet.
You can learn more about him here.....................
Alexander III of Macedon (20/21 July 356 – 10/11 June 323 BC), commonly known as Alexander the Great (Greek: Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος, Mgas Alxandros), was a king of Macedon or Macedonia, a state in the north eastern region of Greece, and the creator of one of the largest empires in ancient history. He was undefeated in battle and is considered one of the most successful commanders of all time.[1] Born in Pella in 356 BC, Alexander was tutored by the famed philosopher Aristotle. In 336 BC he succeeded his father Philip II of Macedon to the throne after he was assassinated. Philip had brought most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony, using both military and diplomatic means.
Upon Philip's death, Alexander inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army. He succeeded in being awarded the generalship of Greece and, with his authority firmly established, launched the military plans for expansion left by his father. In 334 BC he invaded Persian-ruled Asia Minor and began a series of campaigns lasting ten years. Alexander broke the power of Persia in a series of decisive battles, most notably the battles of Issus and Gaugamela. Subsequently he overthrew the Persian king Darius III and conquered the entirety of the Persian Empire.i[›] The Macedonian Empire now stretched from the Adriatic sea to the Indus river.
Following his desire to reach the "ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea", he invaded India in 326 BC, but was eventually forced to turn back by the near-mutiny of his troops. Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BC, without realizing a series of planned campaigns that would have begun with an invasion of Arabia. In the years following Alexander's death a series of civil wars tore his empire apart which resulted in the formation of a number of states ruled by the Diadochi - Alexander's surviving generals. Although he is mostly remembered for his vast conquests, Alexander's lasting legacy was not his reign, but the cultural diffusion his conquests engendered.
Alexander's settlement of Greek colonists and culture in the east resulted in a new Hellenistic culture, aspects of which were still evident in the traditions of the Byzantine Empire until the mid-15th century. Alexander became legendary as a classical hero in the mold of Achilles, and features prominently in the history and myth of Greek and non-Greek cultures. He became the measure against which generals, even to this day, compare themselves and military academies throughout the world still teach his tactical exploits.[2] ii[›]
enigma_1357
MPA (400+ posts)
woh Moazaz they zamnein mein mussalman ho kar, tum khawar howey tark e Quran ho kar :(
Mansoor Khan
Senator (1k+ posts)
hello everyone
Mr javed try to make some sense what the shit u are saying and just by getting thru wikipedia u think alexander the great as a prophet. dont jump to conclusion. he was a pagan and nothing more
about Alexander the great the name was zulqarnain which had two meaning one with two horns and other is one who have seen two ages. so if u could find cyrus the great he suits most on the zulqarnain and not the macedonian guy common u r making every man a prophet that s not fine. Cyrus the great is the one who is mostly thought of as zulqarnain. and the rest of ur words simply need no explanation coz its useless. there are some characteristics given about zulqarnain and u should judge him also by that and u couldnt find a single one and offcourse nothing prophetic so i think u got my point if not then u can ask me more about it or try to find it out. just by going thru databases for half an hour u could find more than u know.
wassalam
Mr javed try to make some sense what the shit u are saying and just by getting thru wikipedia u think alexander the great as a prophet. dont jump to conclusion. he was a pagan and nothing more
about Alexander the great the name was zulqarnain which had two meaning one with two horns and other is one who have seen two ages. so if u could find cyrus the great he suits most on the zulqarnain and not the macedonian guy common u r making every man a prophet that s not fine. Cyrus the great is the one who is mostly thought of as zulqarnain. and the rest of ur words simply need no explanation coz its useless. there are some characteristics given about zulqarnain and u should judge him also by that and u couldnt find a single one and offcourse nothing prophetic so i think u got my point if not then u can ask me more about it or try to find it out. just by going thru databases for half an hour u could find more than u know.
wassalam
NAME IS A NAME WE MUST NOT DEPERSONALISE IT BY GOING FOR ITS MEANING.
IF MY NAME IS JAVED YOU MUST NOT THINK I AM THE PERSON WHO WILL LIVE FOR EVER AND YOU MUST NOT GIVE ME THE NAME AND CALL ME 'HMESHA RAHNE WALA' INSTEAD OF JAVED.
ACCEPTED THAT A NAME MIGHT HAVE SOME MEANING. WHEN THE GOD SPOKE ABOUT A PERSON CALLED 'ZULQARNAIN' APPARENTLY GOD DID NOT MEAN A PERSON WITH TWO HORNS OR TWO AGES.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FURTHER EXPAND ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW AND WOULD LIKE TO LEARN THAT ZULQARNAAIN WAS REALLY A PERSON WITH TWO HORNS OR TWO AGES. IF YOU HAVE ANY EXPLANATION, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. WHAT DID GOD MEANT BY CALLING A PERSON WITH TWO HORNS OR TWO AGES. i SHALL BE REALLY GRATEFUL
IF MY NAME IS JAVED YOU MUST NOT THINK I AM THE PERSON WHO WILL LIVE FOR EVER AND YOU MUST NOT GIVE ME THE NAME AND CALL ME 'HMESHA RAHNE WALA' INSTEAD OF JAVED.
ACCEPTED THAT A NAME MIGHT HAVE SOME MEANING. WHEN THE GOD SPOKE ABOUT A PERSON CALLED 'ZULQARNAIN' APPARENTLY GOD DID NOT MEAN A PERSON WITH TWO HORNS OR TWO AGES.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FURTHER EXPAND ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW AND WOULD LIKE TO LEARN THAT ZULQARNAAIN WAS REALLY A PERSON WITH TWO HORNS OR TWO AGES. IF YOU HAVE ANY EXPLANATION, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. WHAT DID GOD MEANT BY CALLING A PERSON WITH TWO HORNS OR TWO AGES. i SHALL BE REALLY GRATEFUL
atensari
(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
Actually the environment you brought up has some historical issues.
Does Alexder has this quality
Last edited:
awan4ever
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Alexander was an adventurer not a custodian of the rights of people. All he wanted to do was conquer new lands and pat himself on the back. He did not bother setting up any form of government nor did he attend to the well being of the people he conquered.
Contrast that with the Amir ul Momineen. He went into a lot of battles as a simple soldier so if somehow you are trying to imply that he was God forbid 'afraid' of fighting then please re-educate yourself. This was a man who single handedly called out the enemies of the Prophet pbuh in Mecca when everyone was afraid of publically supporting him. After the conversion of Umar r.a. people felt safe enough to openly admit their religious beliefs and fely confident enough to pray openly. What does that tell you about Umar. r.a. ? A man who no one dared to confront even when he was supporting Islam alone with only his sword in his hand.
You think such a man was 'reluctant' to go into battle himself?
That is the stupidest implication I have ever heard.
The fact that he was actually RUNNING a government and its institutions (unlike Alexander the Ass who was going around plundering lands) means he wasnt always free to join battle AFTER he became Caliph. However please point out one instance when he did not go into battle when he was not a ruler himself?
awan4ever
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Please read the wikipedia entries about Alexander and Cyrus the great.
Then read the qualities of both men and match them with those told by the Holy Quran of Zulqarnain.
There are apparently two personalities in history before Islam who were great conquerors and ruled over vast empires as mentioned by Qur’an. These were Alexander the Greek conqueror and Cyrus the Persian conqueror. As far as Alexander is concerned the extent of his expeditions was towards the east and south, whereas Qur’an mentions Zulqarnain’s expeditions towards west, east and a third direction. Secondly when Qur’an talks about Zulqarnain, it shows him as a person believing in one God and the hereafter. He is also depicted as a kindhearted and just ruler. Now it is known about Alexander that he was a polytheist and no incidents of his kindness and justice are explicitly recorded in history. But as far as Cyrus is concerned we find out that the extent of his expeditions was towards west, east and north that is, after becoming the king of Persia, Cyrus went on different expeditions, ultimately conquering almost eighty percent of the civilized world at that time. He became the king of this vast empire stretching from Lydia (west) to India (east) and Bactria (north) to Babylon (south). Secondly history has explicitly recorded incidents of Cyrus’s extreme kindness and justice towards his subjects. In fact, these traits of his personality were so conspicuous that friend and foe equally acknowledged this fact. As regards Cyrus’s religion, he was a believer in Zoroastrianism, a new religion at that time, which existed with all its purity and spirit. The prophet Zoroaster who was probably contemporary to Cyrus preached belief in one God, the hereafter and all other basic good deeds that form a part of Divine religions. This answers our first question, showing that Cyrus comes very close to the narrative of the Qur’an. Now the second question will be answered in the light of the first.
As far as Alexander is concerned, there is no mention of him in the history of either the Quraish or the Jews and Christians in any manner which makes him significant for either of these groups. But as far as Cyrus is concerned we find out that though he had no significance for Quraish and Christians but Jews had a very special importance for him in their history. What was this importance of Cyrus for Jews? Anyone who is familiar with the Jewish history knows that the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar conquered the kingdom of Judea in sixth century B.C and the Jews were taken to Babylon as captives. The temple of Jerusalem was plundered and desecrated. From then onwards the Jews remained in Babylon as captives for seventy years. During this time the Prophet Daniel was appointed in Jews. He was the Prophet who at one time, after receiving revelation from God in a dream, announced the coming of a savior of Jews---the one who would release them from the captivity of the Babylonians. In that dream the Prophet Daniel saw this savior as a ram with two horns (Zulqarnain---one with two horns) (Daniel 8:1-4). The two horns metaphorically showed the two kingdoms of Media and Persia united and ram depicting the savior himself showed him to be the conqueror and king of this united kingdom. This king was Cyrus. He was the one who afterwards conquered the Babylonian kingdom and released the Jews from captivity and allowed them to go back to their homeland and build the temple. It was because of these reasons that Jews held him in very high esteem and considered him as their savior as predicted by the Prophet Daniel. Apart from Prophet Daniel, Prophet Isaiah and Jermiah also foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, captivity of Jews and then release with the coming of Cyrus as the savior (Isaiah 44:26-28, 45:1-3) (Jermiah 50:1-3, 29:11). With this explanation it becomes clear that Jews had great regard for the Persian king Cyrus. This answers our second question that out of the three main groups who were the direct addressees of Qur’an---Quraish, Jews, Christians---Jews had a personality in their history who fits the description of Zulqarnain and they had great regard for him. This personality (Cyrus) happens to be the same, which we have alluded to, in the first question. This discussion makes it clear that Cyrus comes very close to the Zulqarnain of Qur’an.
http://www.understanding-islam.com/rq/q-028.htm
Alexander was not even a believer in ONE God and he was even considered to be a homosexual by many.
Cyrus the Greats Kingdom was greater than Alexanders and he ventured much farther East then Alexander which makes him more likely to be the one who met the Yajuj and Majuj.
Cyrus has an important place in Jewish history and tradition and since Islam also derives historical events from Judeo Christian tradition, it is more likely that Cyrus was Zulqarnain as compared to Alexander.
Just google "Zulqarnain in Quran" and read the various articles. Then make up your mind as to who fits the bill more. Cyrus or Alexander.
Raaz
(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
So r they doing Touheen e Resalat ?
who says that Skindar was Zulqarnain, as described in Quran Pak.
